BS: Child neglect and the law

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Black Hawk unlogged
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:53 PM

Without giving an opinion of guilty or not of any wrongdoings I find some of the McCann actions/statements strange.

I have never been involved with the police or criminal investigators but have always understood that in cases of murder,abuse, assault etc. the immediate suspicion falls on close family then friends, business partners etc. (I admit most of my understanding is from TV shows, magazines etc. - some factual)
This being the case, how can Mr McCann in his 'blog' state that he never thought they would be classed as suspects.
This is a highly intelligent person in a prominent position who says this had not even crossed his mind.
His must be the only mind it has not crossed, even those on this site who are defending him must have considered it, even if just to reject the idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:27 PM

Nuremberg Trials come to mind

I find that a very strange and extreme statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:23 PM

new fund?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Ozwart
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:09 AM

Not necessarily guilt by association. Nuremberg Trials come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:08 AM

"The couple risk a public backlash if the board controlling Madeleine's fund hands over the cash to shell out for a £500-an-hour legal team." - from today's news

yes Wolfgang they are expensive and very skilled in the laws of extradition - it was widely believed at the time of his arrest that Pinochet would/should have been extradited to Spain to face charges of abduction and murder against named individuals including a United Nations diplomat

I didn't contribute to the Leave no Stone Unturned Limited company but I hope that the people who did will eventually see their donations used for the charitable purpose they were led to believe they would be

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:24 AM

It has just been announced on the news that the fund will not be used for legal costs.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:01 AM

guilt by association

I don't think the implication was of guilt.

I took it to mean that if they are hoping to use other people's money then perhaps they could choose somebody a little bit cheaper.

Equally, some people may ask why a laywer who is an expert in extradition is needed. We all know that they are happy to return to Portugal the minute they are asked to.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:52 AM

a skilled lawyer who suceeded in getting General Pinochet released from arrest and extradition to Spain on a charge of murder, torture and kidnapping

He too knew people in the government!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:50 AM

a skilled lawyer who suceeded in getting General Pinochet released from arrest and extradition to Spain on a charge of murder, torture and kidnapping

guilt by association

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:23 AM

If anything stirs up the emotions of the British public it is harm coming to a child.

As a nation we despise deception and being taken for a fool.

If there is one thing we don't stand for, it's being conned out of money !

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: kendall
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:03 AM

They may be innocent of killing their baby, but they are guilty of neglect.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:20 AM

Everybody has a right to defend themselves.

There are now 3 top lawyers involved.

People were led to believe that eventually any remaining money would be used for other less publicised cases. This appears to be becoming a "big" case. It is possible that every penny of the fund will be needed for costs.

Should guilt be proved could charges of fraud follow?

Please note that I am not accusing anybody of anything. These parents may be completely innocent; I sincerely hope they are. Hopefully, the truth will eventually be found. I do however feel that there definitely is a case to answer for child neglect and whatever the outcome of the police investigation into other things I, for one, am very pleased that Social Services are involved - that is the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:19 AM

a grimly compelling story that will end badly for us all (opinion article from the GUARDIAN)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:03 AM

I would not deny anyone the right to defend themselves on a charge of filicide.

The parents have certainly chosen a skilled lawyer who suceeded in getting General Pinochet released from arrest and extradition to Spain on a charge of murder, torture and kidnapping (even being awarded £350,000 legal costs) in 1998

However such lawyers do not come cheap and there is a "fund" of a million pounds that was collected by donations from sympathetic people on a crest of highly emotional publicity under the stated objective -                                                                     "To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;      
and
"To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family."
- IF Madeleine was found the remainder of the money was to be used to assist in other cases of abduction.

As this large "fund" is classed as a buisness (the form in which it was set up was not acceptable to be classed as a "charity") and the directors are personal friends or family of the McCanns it appears that it may be possible to use the money that well meaning donors thought would be used to assist in the search for Madeleine and other missing children to pay for the most expensive "celebrity" laywers.

I appreciate that anyone who was not in the UK during the engendered mass emotional reaction whipped up by the McCann publicity machine might not realize how great a "betrayal" the donors may feel if the money they thought was for charitable purposes is used in this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: kendall
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 09:44 PM

They have every right to defend themselves. They had NO right to leave small children alone to go partying.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:41 PM

there is little to stop the McCanns using the money for legal fees.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM

They were trying to see if there was a way round paying the tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:39 PM

It's a limited company, that means that they are required to submit accounts to HMRC. They will be taxed at the rate approprate to their income.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:06 PM

Tax that "fund" as income. That's what it has become.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 02:19 PM

I had checked out the directors of this company too eanjay! but this is the first time that I've seen any reference to their relationships with the parents in the press.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 02:12 PM

I would also add that the family are continuing the fund raising.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 02:09 PM

getting worse

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 01:27 PM

What a shame eanjay that it takes a reporter from the other side of the world to speak out against the "sanctification" of the team McCann.

a small extract ....

"Across Europe, many children go missing everyday but no case has received the amount of coverage the McCann disappearance has generated.

Yet, despite every micro detail of the events leading up to the disappearance being scrutinised, there has been virtually no critical analysis of how two wealthy, well-educated parents could be so reckless as to leave their children alone in a foreign country.

Instead, the bleeding hearts would have us believe many parents regularly do this without any such consequences."


I strongly urge people with open minds to read the rest and note the major questions that are ignored by the home grown newspapers.

This is a well written article and makes me ashamed of the almost universal highly emotive and exploitative nature of the British press and other media.

Although the BBC have criticised other radio stations for continual use of first names when referring to the parents making them more "intimate" to listeners they contiue to do this and still refer to the paid professional spin doctor as a "family friend"

Where is the investigative journalism that should be looking into the use of the donations so freely given by people with far less income than the McCanns? Why does the Limited Company only allow for funds to be used to aid similar cases IF Madeleine is returned safely to her parents?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:53 PM

My thoughts too

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:16 PM

OK, just wondered, as you said a couple of days ago, and I noticed that one had been inserted.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:12 PM

No John, I don't have a missing post, I started a thread in early May in which I cast doubt over the innocence of the two McCann's and it was deleted, that was what I was referring to earlier. No I started a thread on the 7th of September as I couldn't find this thread and Joe moved it onto it for me.
Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: jacqui.c
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:02 PM

No child of those ages should be left alone for any length of time. There appears to be no doubt that the parents left the children unattended and for that I would hold them at least partially responsible for whatever happened to the little girl.

I agree with SRS about the caste system - IMHO these parents, both of whom are doctors and would therefore be seen as intelligent and responsible in their professional lives - should have carried the same virtues over into their family life. Anyone who takes on the extreme responsibility of caring for a child should make that responsibility the most important thing in their lives. In this case the parents' selfish and irresponsible behaviour makes me shudder. These were people who could well afford to employ a babysitter but didn't. How long would it take for a child to die in a fire, or to fall into the swimming pool if it woke up and went looking for its parents? The psychological damage that can be done to a young child waking up in a strange place to find its parents not there and that it took quite a while, in a child's perception, for Mummy or Daddy to get to them should have been considered and these were parents who supposedly were intelligent enough to be able to think about the dangers of their actions.

I ain't going to comment on their guilt or innocence in respect of the disappearance of the little girl - that's for the Police and the courts to sort out. All I will say is that no parent who really cares about their children should behave in the way that these two did.
Whether they left the children for an hour or the best part of the night they were WRONG.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 11:09 AM

Nor yet trial by Mudcat!

I have seen no evidence of that in any of these posts.

Remember, the thread is about child neglect - the apartment was closer to the swimming pool than the tapas bar; certainly not "like being in your own garden" - well certainly not in my own garden.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Regular member
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:43 AM

Some years back I took two kids (about three and eight years old) out of a building that was on fire. The parents had left them alone with the family dog for protection. Just ask me what I think about little kids being left to fend for themselves, then ask what I think of parents who would do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:28 AM

Guest Victor
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:02 AM
Is that your missing post?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:09 AM

I really don't want an argument over this, but the nationwide Portuguese police search for the child is over.

They no longer organise search parties.

The poster campaign organised by the families in England in which they send reams of posters to ex pats living in Europe has also ended.

On one can condone the actions of these two people in leaving such young children alone ( no matter how some members here appear to trivialise this by saying "they were only 70 yards away" at 2.00am in the morning).

I started a thread two days after the child went missing in which I said there was something not quite correct about the parents in their responses and body language which was deleted.

I have been posting on this thread since May, and I remain adamant that the parents know a lot more about the case than they care to admit to. Am I being judgemental ? Yes I am.

Why ?

Because a beautiful child has vanished and the parents reactions from the very first day was cold and non responsive.

The friends who were on holidays with them immediately distanced themselves from the McCann's.

They allowed people to donate time and money to their campaign and watched a continental wide search search get under way and seemed to enjoy the media attention.

I have a close friend who's sisters child was abducted in the early seventies (thankfully returned) and she said how could anyone in that position sit calmly in front of a tv camera and hold her composure and visit a hair stylish two days after the child went missing ?

In her words " I threw up everything I ate, my personal hygiene was a disgrace and I hadn't the strength in my legs to stand up".

I doubt I will stand to be corrected when the full truth of this matter comes out, and it will.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:08 AM

Many people want to become foster parents but can't jump through all the hoops that Social Services demand before approving their application.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be thoroughly checked, but I have heard some pretty petty reasons given for refusing to let people's name go forward.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:03 AM

From days of old, it has generally been acknowledged that "History is written by the winner."

In the day of the Internet, what seems to pass for some of you as history is "written" by anyone who has access to a keyboard and can post a few spurious links.

From a small amount of browsing and googling, I have found a wealth of news reoprts, websites and pages attesting to a serious problem of an abuse of power by officials in the Child Care industry.
This is made worse by the almost total lack of secrecy of proceedings within the Family courts.
Couple this to the well publicised and tragic cases where the Social Services have, often by neglect of duty, failed to protect a child.
I think there is enough evidence for a serious enquiry to be made into the workings of the Social Services of this country.

Do you believe everything you read on the Internet? Who is likely to post their account, someone who is content with the outcome of a case, or someone who is unhappy? Justly convicted or not, the complainers are going to post the lion's share of reports. All things aren't equal any more, and to suggest that these social services are just waiting to pounce on innocent families and that social workers can't tell the difference between a mean-spirited nasty report by a disgrunted person lodged against a parent from a case of serious child endangerment is ludicrous.

Yes there are child welfare workers who are overworked and undertrained. And they're not perfect. If you have such strong opinions about the system, perhaps you should become engaged and become a foster parent. It's the least you can do.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:02 AM

An objective consideration of all the known facts around the occasions that all the children were left unattended in an unfamiliar environment, their ages at the time and what the position of the law was the purpose of this thread.

The "circus" which followed exploited the media and the public's sympathy and drew attention away from any parental irresponsibility.

There was no attempt on my part to "gang-up" on the McCanns but I would have been very happy to deflect and expose their expensive and skilled publicity machine (not to mention the "dubious" Limited Company) which totally ignored any parental short comings and hurled suspicion and blame (including details of personal officers) onto the investigation - and instead focus upon the real "victim" in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 09:37 AM

I don't share a belief in the media's biased reporting. I merely objected to people ganging up on the McCanns based on little or no evidence.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 09:33 AM

an alternative way of discussing social work intervention ?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:47 AM

Heavens!! for a while I believed that Social Workers or anyone who didn't share the media's blatently biased reporting were "on trial" here!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:32 AM

Nor yet trial by Mudcat!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:13 AM

By and large I agree with you Kevin. However while one instance may be regarded as "foolish" long term neglect of this kind would be not.

My purely personal opinion is that the McCanns were grossly irresponsible in their decision not to take advantage of the readily available babysitting services and a little less than truthful about the actual number of evenings and time that the children were left alone, the distance from the late night bar and the frequency of "checking - up"

The Times online web site also gives one of the least lurid and objective analysis of "the key questions" - although one of the most sensible articles about the dangers of the media coverage I have come across is by Lauren O'Hara writing in the Cyprus Mail

...."Everyone wants Madeleine home safe, but she along with her family is in danger of being iconised in the same way as Princess Di and the higher people are elevated the further they have to fall. Now the McCanns are asking to be left alone, but it was their decision to exploit the media. They did not retreat quietly to devote themselves to the welfare of their two other children while the authorities were allowed to investigate. Personally, I might feel very insecure keeping my children in a place where I suspected a paedophile ring was operating. I'd want my other two kids out of the situation: safe and sound.

A senior police officer the other day told me that he felt that the investigation had been seriously hampered by the media attention. In fact, it could have put Madeleine's life at risk. Who would want to come forward to face this media circus with information? We have no idea yet of the outcome of the McCann case, nor can anyone have an idea of innocence or guilt without being party to the forensic information. But trial by tabloid is not the answer. It's a salutary warning. If, God forbid, it ever happens to someone we know or love it must make us wary of letting the paparazzi Pandora out of its box."

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:12 AM

The truth will out.

I very much hope so, and am quite prepared to wait until it does before I feel any justification for coming on all judgemental.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:07 AM

Four children, one annual holiday a year for 16 years and NEVER ONCE did my wife or I EVER leave the children alone on holiday or at home.


"dining in another building 70 yards away, relying on popping back from time to time to check on them", nice trivialisation McGrath of H.

"Drinking and dancing until 2.00am" was the eye witness reports from other British holidaymakers there at the time.

I repeat, if they wanted that kind of holiday, then leave the kids at home.

(They declined the resorts child minding services).

The truth will out.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:46 AM

"Portuguese police today denied a report that they had found a perfect DNA match for Madeleine McCann in a sample of body fluids taken from a car hired by her parents 25 days after her disappearance.

But a source close to the investigation told The Times that forensics experts had found a surprising amount of Madeleine's hair in the hired Renault Scenic" From TimkesOnlione

Not quite the same as ""The latest news from Portugal matches the DNA of the blood in the car to that of Madeleine".

....................

No one is denying that it was foolish for the parents to leave their children alone while dining in another building 70 yards away, relying on popping back from time to time to check on them. But that is the kind of foolish mistake which a very large number of parents have made in their time, for example eating downstairs in a hotel while their children are up in their room.

And in most cases, of course, nothing bad happens, and nobody ever hears about it, and very likely the parents even forget all about it, the way we forget about all kinds of foolish things we have done in our time. In itself that would never be seen as sufficient to justify removing children from the care of parents. No social worker would ever recommend it, no court would accept it if they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:27 AM

The rules of confidentiality in Family Courts are dictated by the legal system of this country and not by any Social Services department.

eanjay posted
"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"
and Liz pointed out that
"Not enough staff, not enough facilities, not enough training, not enough pay."

I wouldn't argue with either of these two observations - they form a dangerous combination. There have been tragic mistakes made and subsequent well publicized enquiries.

At the end of the day there is no "Child Care Industry" just a number of over worked paid servants struggling to make the best decisions for the welfare of children the COURTS judge to be "at risk" often in an atmosphere of public scorn and limited or incorrect information.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:11 AM

Sapper you can't simply state that parents all too often have no knowledge of what is happening in Case Conferences and then post a link to where they secretly recorded selective extracts from one where they most obviously did, - oh sorry, yes you can!

The professionals involved in these cases whether teachers, police, health workers or Social Workers are, unlike the parents, bound by rules of confidentiality and are therefore unable to answer back to these highly publicized and emotional "appeals" to a public which does not have the details of the circumstances.

As I've said before the effects of the press investigating personal lives (such as the first suspect in the McCann case who was compared with the convicted double child killer Ian Huntley) can be horrendous to all concerned and, it is with just cause, that the most recent enquiry into the reporting of Family Proceedings came down heavily on defending the anonymity of the children involved

In the case you give a link to the article linked to goes on to say -

"The council does not take lightly any recommendation to the court for a child or a baby to be brought into care. The decision whether or not to institute care proceedings is made by social workers who have to consider the best interests of the child."

There is no suggestion in this report which states that the Social worker would request an "Interim Care Order" (although the outcome would rely upon the judge's decision) that "compuslory adoption" is a consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:09 AM

There certainly is evidence for a major enquiry... trouble is, we all know what the results should be already.

Not enough staff, not enough facilities, not enough training, not enough pay.

Legislations and procedures have changed so dramatically recently that someone who worked in the service 4 years ago would be totally out of their depth if they returned to work today.

It's the same all over.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: sapper82
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:01 AM

From a small amount of browsing and googling, I have found a wealth of news reoprts, websites and pages attesting to a serious problem of an abuse of power by officials in the Child Care industry.
This is made worse by the almost total lack of secrecy of proceedings within the Family courts.
Couple this to the well publicised and tragic cases where the Social Services have, often by neglect of duty, failed to protect a child.
I think there is enough evidence for a serious enquiry to be made into the workings of the Social Services of this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:08 AM

What we seem to have in the UK is child rearing by legislation, and not by love or common sense.
The state interferes too much in all our daily lives, and many parents don't know where they stand.
I abhor the whole 'interference culture' that seems to have become such a growth industry.
I also cannot see what book learning and case studies can teach you about life. Only living can do that, Social work theories are just that, theories, they bear little relation to realities in many cases.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: sapper82
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:05 AM

Another link of possible abuse of powers by Social Services

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:55 AM

The sad case quoted in the link you gave Sapper concerned medical evidence of fractures being received by the court as irrefutable evidence of "abuse"
Where strong suspicion of harm is received from medical, police or educational sources the Social Services are required to consider action; whether this is accepted as "evidence" of harm or risk is the decision of the court.

Of course professionals make mistakes as eanjay has already allowed but, for example, this sort of medical error not mean that ALL doctors are "bad" and the Health Service should be scrapped.

I think that we have seen enough examples of "free reporting" in the McCann case to understand why some degree of confidentiality (I wish people wouldn't use perjorative headline grapping terms like "secrecy") is used in Family Proceedings.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: sapper82
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:36 AM

There appears to be a lot of concern with regard to the way children are being taken for compulsory adoption via the Family courts, particularly with respect to the secrecy with these courts operate.
It appears that the evidence, upon which these courts operate, is planned out by Social Services in case conferences where all too often that parents concerned have no knowledge of what is going on, no right of representation, no information on the matters disacussed and no right of appeal.
This is compounded by the immense wall of secrecy surrounding the entire Family courts system.

MP bids to lift secrecy in family courts

System taking hundreds of babies for adoption