Fran and Molly Lyon - 'Tonight with Trevor McDonald' ITV1 8pm Mon Nov 2006

http://www.itv.com/News/tonight/episodes/Don-tTakeMyBaby/default.html

Blogger Opinions

http://mrstaraplumbing.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/baby-abduction-scandal-write-to-your-mp

http://un-cool.blogspot.com/2007/09/fran-lyon.html

http://angryforareason.blogspot.com/2007/09/when-past-mental-health-diagnoses.html

http://writhesafely.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/how-psychiatry-blames-the-victim/

NEW - The Petition

A link to my post containing earlier articles:  http://remrem511.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!FE7164D8750CA762!471.entry

VISIT 'Justice for Families' PLEASE
YOUR family is NOT YOURS if there's doubt over your competency as a parent.

If you are being unfairly treated by the child protection system and need help with the Social Services and Family Court try visiting the 'Justice for Families' FORUM

While we hear about the failings of Social Services NOT removing children in time.. we are GAGGED from telling the world when our children are wrongly removed for trivial or mistaken reasons.

No immediate worries about harm coming to their child… but if left to the Child Protection System this couple won’t be able to keep their new baby girl even if they are good enough parents and love her completely.

20/08/2007 - YouTube row over social services baby threat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/19/nsocial119.xml

21/08/2007 - YouTube mum will fight to keep baby

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local-news/YouTube-mum-will-fight-to.3126563.jp

23/08/2007 - Guilty of child abuse! (Well, our version.)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article2310550.ece

26/08/2007 - Threat to take new-born over emotional abuse

28/08/2007 - Backing mum in bid to keep child

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local-news/Backing-mum-in-bid-to.3149859.jp

06/09/2007 – That Vanessa Brookes tape now in the public domain (blog)

http://www.mattwardman.co.uk/2007/09/06/that-vanessa-brookes-tape-now-in-the-public-domain/

21/09/2007 - Mother gives birth to care-threat case baby

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local-news/Mother-gives-birth-to-carethreat.3221412.jp

21/09/2007 - Baby taken from Calderdale Hospital

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local-news/Baby-taken-from-Calderdale-Hospital.3222069.jp 

22/09/2007 - Couple flee with baby - fifth person arrested

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local-news/Couple-flee-with-baby-.3223395.jp

20/08/2007 - Call for scrutiny of professionals in child deaths

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YK0O0TQW3NM3TQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/08/19/nsocial219.xml “Critics claim the system is flawed and want the reviews to be carried out either by police, or by an independent national body. MPs plan to demand in the Commons that inquiries are independent and that the findings are made public.”

Madeleine McCann saga reflects our society

The following are a selection of comments which choose to pick up on our faulty Child Protection System and the presumption of guilt or public need for closure.  It seems we need a finding of innocent or guilty to satisfy but when even the smallest doubt is in the minds of those investigating...99% innocent just isn't enough. How many innocent families are suffering? Noone knows. Silverbirch511.

Recently 2 cases have been in the Media.
A partially sighted woman who once had postnatal depression is to have her child taken into care when it is born because she "might" get PND again, and this "could cause" emotional abuse of the child. Unfortunately the harassment she is suffering, plus the horror of her child being taken away, not only endangers her life and that of her child through stress induced high blood pressure, but means she will certainly have PND now. At that rate probably about a third of all children born in the UK would go into care immediately, because PND is very common. We used to be taught as nurses that 1 in 3 mothers suffer from it to some degree.
The second lady was raped as a 14 year old. This was hardly her fault! She self harmed as a result, and received treatment in a mental hospital. Since then she has made a new life for herself, and been through college. I think she got her degree? She has been told her child will be taken off her as she "might" harm it. Both of these women have done nothing wrong.
The McCanns on the other hand have broken Potuguese and UK law, by leaving young children alone. It is for that reason, not the sad disappearence of Madeleine, that Social Services should investigate. If it was Duanne and Tracey from darkest Essex, the Social Workers would have been waiting at the airport and would have been all over them like a rash.They put not 1, but 3 children at risk. If it is OK to steal the babies of two women who are innocent of any wrongdoing, why should the Mccanns be treated any differently?
Posted by Beryl on September 13, 2007 9:07 AM
 

There are many echoes, in this case, of the trial of Lindy Chamberlain in Australia 25 years ago. Lindy reported that a dingo had taken her baby daughter from their tent in the camping ground outside Ayer’s Rock (Uluru) in the central Australian desert.

There was, here, a huge animosity towards Lindy and a willingness to accept scientific evidence that turned out later to be less believable than a leaden jetliner. Lindy was convicted, went to jail, and had to wait for concerned citizens to mount a campaign that eventually exposed the flimsiness of the case brought against her.

The letter writers who have said that we should all shut up and let the police handle this case seem to have forgotten that police can also be so carried away by their own prejudices, and by the desire to convict SOMEONE. Boris, you have done a very good thing to shine a light on the emotional pressures that influence both the public and the police to form totally unsupportable judgements, rather than endure the agony of just not knowing.

Posted by Warwick on September 13, 2007 8:23 AM "Why have 17,000 already signed an online petition requesting that the social services examine the welfare of the younger McCann children?"

Unfortunately, Boris, we do know at least one fact in this case. The McCanns left three minors with inadequate supervision. We know because they told us and this fact is not disputed.

Had a nursery, a baby sitter or even the average mother done this, the involvement of social services and perhaps the police would inevitable on the basis of negligence, regardless of whether any ill-events followed.

The wicked irony in respect of homicide allegations is that over the last 15 years it has been notable doctors pushing the 'all parents are guilty' message.

All that has happened is that this approach has now been applied to a pair of doctors who are amazed to find they are not immune from blythe accusations.

Have you not been following the group cases of Broxtowe, Orkney, Cleveland, Rochdale etc? The list of individual cases is huge now of Clark, Cannings, Patel, Gay, Williams, Jenkins, etc. all based on doctors making wild accusations on very little evidence.

That is only the ones which reach the criminal courts. The ones being bitterly contested in the family courts, often under conditions of secrecy, include notable cases such as Webster.

The MP John Hemming acts as a contact point for many of these cases. It was only in 2006 that your own constituents were freed from the threat of contempt of court if they approached you about their disputes with the doctors and social services.

What has happened here is the classic action of Terror, where a climate of coercion and suspicion eventually comes round and bites the very people who began it.

I am very sorry for the McCanns, who are likely to end up as the victims of their own child protection protocols.

Posted by Mrs Piers on September 13, 2007 8:22 AM

Read about Fran Lyon's fight to keep her unborn child Molly

Join on Facebook.com

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4696703334

Read the stories in the Daily Mail and The Telegraph

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=480201&in_page_id=1879&in_page_id=1879&expand=true#StartComments

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/26/nbaby126.xml

Watch on Sky News (Aug 29 2007)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1281689,00.html

Give love a chance

Due to technical difficulties I cannot display the Falsely Accused Forums module of this blog... If you want to visit these forums please click on these links...

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy Discussion (Heart-to-Heart)

http://www.msbp.com/forum/

Families anti-Social Services Inquiry Team (FASSIT)

&

Unity Injustice - Bringing Justice back home to the family...

http://fassit.2truth.com

FightCPS.com - (U.S. forum)

http://forum.fightcps.com/

If you decide to join these forums I hope you contribute in a polite and constructive manner, thankyou.

Need to check the same sites, again and again, for information? Try Roll-Your-Own search engine just put in up to 25 of the home pages of your favourite haunts and give your search a name. You can even make the tool public so others can benefit from it too.

http://www.rollyo.com/firefoxsearch.html

**RCPCH Publication 2006 - Child Protection Companion**

Trying to pin down cases of medical conditions that 'mimic' abuse & getting there.

I don't think this is the child abuse bible though there are still conditions not included and that doctors may not pin down and blame the parents. (See also - Fabricated or Induced Illness by Carers - Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health)

This is a vast improvement on the lack of any procedure before. (Being at the mercy of individual doctors opinions leaves a lot to be desired)

This document also shows how many  children will have been let down at the first hurdle in the days before guidance.  How many parents of children with bruising have actually been asked about their family history to exclude connective tissue disease and rare bleeding disorders?  Not a lot I'd guess.

The memberships of the support groups for those conditions will swell.  Before now I don't think doctors put a high enough priority on diagnosis.

To the parents about to have their children diagnosed with these illnesses

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health would like to invite you to take part in their research into parents' experiences in health settings when non-accidental injury was suspected.

All children have accidents and most parents have, at some time, had to seek medical help for their injured child. Mostly when this happens, the doctor can easily see from the type of injury and by listening to what happened that the injury was accidental.

More rarely, the doctor might feel that there are a number of possible causes for the injury. They are doing this research so they can understand how parents feel in this situation. They hope this will help them in developing training for doctors on how they should explain this situation to families. They would like to hear about your experience of such a situation where non-accidental injury was first suspected but not proved or disproved. The researcher would like to interview you either face to face or over the telephone. You can also call her anonymously.

There are new rules for the reporting of child abuse in an effort to answer the call for less secrecy in the family courts. (see Hardinghams/Websters link) This will be a big change and may be uncomfortable for families who have less than perfect lives, but, in the long run I hope will highlight the inadequate levels of proof and the misrepresentation of levels of harm as reported by Social Services.

As the judges in the cases can choose whether to release details to the press or not there’s a chance that they will choose to highlight the atrocities that some parents commit and hide some more controversial cases.

I hope they would rather choose to further the fight for a fairer system for families, one that allows a finding other than guilty and shows that the Social Services and justice systems are biased and in need of change.

Any normal problem in the family is magnified and past problems of any kind are all brought to life as if they are current concerns, many families would not escape criticism by Social Services as they seem to think that if other parents could do a better job then you are failing your children. Whoever these other fictional fosterers/adopters are their numbers are dwindling and their standards will be dropping as more and more ‘normal’ folk lose their children (and in some cases – lose their jobs caring for children) for being less than perfect and having a stain on their good names.

As things stand when you are accused of abuse by whatever means; be it a GP, ex-lover, unhappy child, the ‘mud sticks’ and your reputation is ruined even if evidence is found to prove otherwise.

“..And then there was light”, lets see what this new dawn brings.

Hardingham-Webster ‘un-gagging’ coverage from The Times

Link to Media Law News from ‘Hold the Front Page’

GUILT – In the eyes of the beholder.

I have heard comments that abuse is, in most cases, obvious. Either undeniable proof or witnessed events backed up by investigation. The trouble starts for innocent people when there is no proof just a supposed injury or an alleged incident and suspicions begin to build.

Doctors seem unwilling to say when they cannot find a cause for symptoms. They do not want to be the person who allows a case of abuse to go unchecked. They cast the seeds of doubt - or worse - present an opinion which is no less than a work of fiction.

Doctors excuse themselves by saying that they are obligated to report any suspicion of child abuse but this suspicion is placing child abuse higher on the list of possible causes of a child’s symptoms than some rare or harder to diagnose conditions. Doctors are reporting abuse where there is none, parents are arrested, questioned, and in some cases convicted because there was insufficient trust in the care giver to fully investigate the child’s condition.

When I asked at the local hospital if there was a list of conditions that must be excluded in cases of suspected child abuse I was told there is not a strictly adhered to procedure because it would slow down the doctor if they had to check every possibility.

I say “You owe us a thorough investigation”, if a doctor misses a possible cause of an illness/injury it can cost a parent their children, their homes, their partners, their lives, AND causes Iatrogenic abuse by failing to diagnose a condition and failing to monitor and treat the sick child.

These are the opinions of the author - Silverbirch511

Have you or someone you know been involved in Child Care Proceedings or been through the Family Courts ?

For your immediate attention:

Important. Write to: david.stokes@dca.gsi.gov.uk

Child Care Proceedings

The Department for Constitutional Affairs notifies that a cross-government review of child care proceedings in England and Wales will look at cases involving public law, where the child may be taken away from its family.

It will examine the extent to which the current system for deciding care cases in the courts ensures that all resources (including children’s services are used in the most effective, efficient, proportionate and timely way to deliver the best outcomes for the children and families concerned.

The review will examine the effectiveness of various early intervention initiatives in preventing cases going to court, where this is possible and appropriate, and at improving outcomes in those cases that do go before the court. It will draw on existing research and will take views from a wide range of people involved in the current system, such as the judiciary, lawyers, social workers, children and families, government and non-government bodies, and those working in child care.

In particular, the Department for Constitutional Affairs seeks views from those with experience of the current child protection system in the courts on changes that could be made to enable it to deliver better outcomes for children.

All comments, submissions and views should be sent by 30 November 2005 to:

David Stokes,

SW1E 6QW

Tel: +44-(0)20-7210 8614