Camilla Cavendish
Enter our Snapshots of Summer photography competition
Learn more about family justice | Write to your MP | Share your experiences
I wrote on Monday about the many desperate parents who have approached me after losing their children to social services. One thing that they all have in common is shock at how quickly the system seems to decide against them, and at how doggedly it sticks to that view despite all evidence to the contrary. Some parents find that minor issues are magnified until the conclusions reached are out of all proportion. The opposite also seems to hold true: some children come to terrible harm because the system systematically underestimates the risk to them.
Why does this happen? Eileen Munro, a reader in social policy at the London School of Economics and the author of Effective Child Protection, says that “child protection work inevitably involves uncertainty, ambiguity and fallibility”. She believes that it is human nature to form a view based on first impressions, and stick to it. “This has a devastating impact in child protection work,” she says, “in that professionals hold on to their beliefs about a family despite new evidence that challenges them. It can be equally harmful whether they are over or underestimating the degree of the risk to the child. They may continue to believe parents are doing well, even though there are successive reports of the child's being distressed or injured. Innocent parents wrongly judged abusive can face the frightening experience of being unable to shake the professionals' conviction, however much counter-evidence they produce.”
The risk of groupthink makes it all the more important that decisions are transparent and open to review. We all know of the tragic deaths of children such as Victoria Climbié, who with hindsight should have been saved. We know much less about the tragedies of children wrongly separated from their families, because of the secrecy of the system.
There are several types of allegation that are almost impossible for parents to disprove. One is “emotional abuse”. You can see why the category exists. Ill-treatment comes in many forms, not all of which leave visible scars. But in that nebulous phrase lurks the potential for injustice. In the past ten years there has been a 50per cent increase in the number of parents or carers accused of “emotional abuse”. It now accounts for 21 per cent of all children registered as needing protection, up from 14 per cent in 1997. Yet the term has no strict definition in British law.
Emotional abuse is not “neglect”: that is a separate category. The Department of Health defines it as “persistent emotional ill-treatment ... [that] may involve conveying to children that they are worthless or inadequate ... and may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being placed on children ... Some level of emotional abuse is involved in all types of illtreatment of a child, though it may occur alone.”
Local authorities interpret this in different ways. In Nottingham, emotional abuse is “an ingrained pattern of interaction ... which it is essential to observe and understand over time”. In Enfield it includes “swearing”, “conditional love” or “discriminatory remarks”. I have heard anecdotally of councils, including West Sussex and Cambridge, that almost never use the term. There are no statistics to confirm this. But it seems that child protection is as much of a postcode lottery as cancer screening.
Expert medical evidence is also notoriously difficult to disprove, even where there is no circumstantial evidence. Lord Justice Judge (who was named as the next Lord Chief Justice yesterday) has warned against an “over-dogmatic” approach in the criminal courts, when we are “still at the frontiers of knowledge”. But it is less clear how family judges should treat syndromes such as Munchausen's syndrome by proxy (MSbP).
Since the discrediting of Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who first defined it, Munchausen's has been relabelled as “fabricated or induced illness”. This is a perverse disorder in which an adult invents or deliberately creates a child's illness to draw attention to himself or herself. Even the experts agree that Munchausen's is rare, likely to affect no more than 50 people a year. But campaigners fear that far more people are being accused of it. For the traits of the Munchausen mother are broad enough to cast suspicion on many whose children are genuinely ill. They include a reluctance to leave the sick child's side, familiarity with medical terms and, most devastating, the denial of accus-ations of abuse.
Two years ago, a group of MPs with falsely accused constituents asked the Government how many people nationally were accused of having MSbP. The Government replied that it did not collect such data - even though Department of Health guidelines tell charity workers, nursery nurses, teachers and even pharmacists to look out for the condition.
Last year, social workers in Hexham told a pregnant student at Edinburgh University that she was in danger of developing MSbP when her baby was born, so they were thinking of removing the baby at birth. The student, Fran Lyon, had developed self-harming and eating disorders seven years earlier, after being raped. But these are disorders from which she has fully recovered. The psychiatrist who treated her as a teenager states that she poses no harm to her child. So does another psychiatrist, who knows Lyon through her charity work. The only person who seems to have entertained the idea that she could develop MSbP is a paediatrician who has never met her. But social workers have given his evidence more weight. Lyon fled to Europe last year, unable to trust her own country, and is now in a legal limbo.
To err is human. To refuse to acknowledge that is inhumane. No professional can be right all the time, particularly in this fraught territory. That is why wholesale reforms are needed - as I will explain tomorrow.
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the collective power of smart thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Flip MinoHD Camcorder
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
42,945
2008
71,450
Car Insurance
Not Specified
MI6
UK-based
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Save up to £1,000 per couple with Elite Vacations at the five-star Constance Lemuria Resort
and do the British Isles this Summer.
Save up to 60% with Oxford Hotels and Inns
Try our inspiring luxury holidays to the Indian Subcontinent and South East Asia.
Great offers available
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
a family support worker from ssd visited me and told me she wanted to give me info that social workers were picking at my family for nothing and she was telling me because she thought i was as good mother as herself and that i deserved to know what can i do about it
kelly earl, middlesbrough, united kingdom
I am shocked to find out all this information about the power that social services have over tparent in this country. I came across whilst researching the subject for a client who is in some 'difficulty' at the moment. Than You to the reporter who s brought this in the open. Transparency is the ke
Jayne Dore, Sheffield, England
The best solution for British "parents' is to have children abroad in family friendly countries...where the british courts can not reach them....it's nice being a parent...don't let the british courts spoil it for you...
Stephen Morris, london, Uk
Kara
social services departments "get" NOTHING for chiildren placed in care of adopted. Councils PAY OUT in costs to foster families and to get court orders, in staff time and legal fees. Fostering and care orders COST.
But thanks for assuming corruption on *no* evidence...
Rufus, North of London, UK
In my own country I have found that social workers bring their own baggage that envelopes their tunnel vision on the matter at hand. How does the system train professionals, to be professionals and objectively review the facts- obviously there is need for a panel of experts- psychologist, psychiatri
Rosemarie Choo-Shee-Nam Queens Law Teacher, Lawyer, Georgetown, Guyana, South America
Children's Services are reluctant to take children away because it costs money. Bottom line is that SW minimise potential risks and don't do adequate risk ananlysis.
Sarah, London, UK
One needs always to follow the money when determining the validity of official actions. How much does the social services dept get for each child placed into foster care? How much does it get for each child adopted?
kara giosis, okc, usa
if the priministers job was on the line how quick would he act how would he feel if they the social services snatched his or a family members kids what about the next generation our children who are having there identitys stolen being snatched its social services that are the child abusers
tracey, south kirkby, westyorkshire
How strange that this debate has all gone quiet in the wake of the Baby P case!!!!!
J Jones, Midlands, UK
I wonder if while she is visiting the UK Judge Judy might look in on our judicuary and suggest how it may be reformed before any more young lives are spoiled by the incompitance of family law court judges.Judges need to enforce orders so everyone knows they will be adhered to including the mother!
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
Merton SS forced me to sign paper work while i was semiconscious in hospital after having a baby. A year on my baby is up for adoption, I have an excellent support network of really good people, and i just miss and love my baby. I ask for your prayers that my baby will back safely with me his mum
deborah, london, uk
My sons who have been in care and read the care order will tell you the system destroys families for no reason. Abuse is being in care without the parent or parents that puts their interests above all others.
sheila, chichester, west sussex
This is very unusual( Amanda) in fact unheard of as it is nearly always the father who previously was the best thing since sliced bread that is turned into 'Shrek' by the family law courts system. This is to cover their own backs as they have no answers and cannot enforce a judgement on vengfull mum
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
I have also had the misfortune of attending court today fighting ss for my little girl who is 5 this has been an on going battle against them the lies they come out with to make you look the worse parent there could be.
Amanda Clark , Hessle. , England
The trouble is these social workers, Cafcass, CSF or Camhs do not have any answers so they cover their backs with the easiest soultion, and break up a family rather then see how each parent might contrbute even if at seperate addresses.
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
Social Services have a duty to investigate heavily, for months and months on end! It takes an average of 2 years to remove children from birth parents after they are first thought to be 'at risk' - in my eyes this is far to long! So this whole thing is not taken lightly by social services!
J Jones, Dudley, UK
I have had the misfortune of losing my three grandchildren to ss lies,lies told in court by the way.My/our case was heard by "MAGISTRATES" how can they be allowed to decide/hand out what amounts to a "LIFE SENTENCE" ?
Mary Docherty, dartford < kent, England
It is all about propaganda. The most effective way of dealing with this is to immediately accuse the social services departments of being paedophiles and abducting children for their own nefarious reasons. As the 'nonce' brush gets to senior staff you'll soon get your kids back.
Stephen, London, UK
We have lost our grandchildren because of all the lies, which we can prove, the social worker said on paper she has spoken to my mum, my mum has been dead for over 10 years. I was told after the court case, the family court judges always go with the ss
ken, Kent, UK
It seems amazing that a social worker only has to say one sentence or write one line after a single meeting with your children and the whole process over many years & contact order is stopped without BOTH parents being able to make their case and more over without the true gist of the childrens wish
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
We really need to keep pestering our M.Ps, on this as they are the only ones to make change they need to lobby Law Lords and the Justice Minister to consider so many people who are critical those who are not have a vested interest such as law firms and social workers.
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
There's an old saying which is often used in movies ( " we'll give him a fair trial then we'll hang him "). The secret family courts operate under a similar principle to remove children from innocent families.
Chris , Leeds
Chris hardy, Leeds , west Yorkshire
despite a 2 1/2 year battle, I have just been told that my 8 year old daughter is to remain in care PERMENANTLY and I am only going to see her 4hrs/mth as that is 'in her best interest.' I suffer from depression - taking her away just made me worse so justifying their case. no way for me to win.help
Frances O'Connell, Todmorden,
I had to cross examine my EX and the CSF reporter we were all under oath. My questioning revealed lies from both including a question asked by the judge and contraticted by my question but the CSF reporter was not called to account.
Conspiricy corrupt, everything in family law starts with 'C' why?
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
As a lawyer who has acted in both criminal and family cases I have been astonished by the innuendo and consensus based on nebulous probability that passes for evidence in family cases when compared with the rigour of criminal cases. Feeble cross-examination compounds the contrast. Justice loses.
Jack Johnson, London,
some one please tell me why, when our very much loved children, are being saved by social services. a child being abused, beaten, and murdered. is indeed neglected by social workers who often claim they didn`t see any danger..
and then have the nerve to use the mistakes they made in our cases.
Lorraine newhill, Stourport on Severn, England
There needs to be an automatic system of independant review for all cases and a method of raising concerns in each case, again independantly reveiwed, a principle of double checking especially of surposed facts. Having been in CPC's they can be very slapdase and rushed, with no means to raise issues
Paul Randle-Jolliffe, Cowes, UK
The British Judicial system mainly the Sheffield Combined court have destroyed my natural childrens lives and their Education I want to know what the goverment intend to do about this as it is never never ever going away.
Fiona McCormick, Sheffield, England
Social workers have to be held accountable for their actions. If the parent has no recourse, this is wrong. How can the system even learn when it is wrong if it is not forced to admit mistakes?
larry, manchester,
"The element of secrecy is compounded by social-workers and 'health professionals' who inform you that on no account talk.. to anybody." Indeed. Social Services 'warned' my friend for telling her child's teacher about the child's physical needs. Further 'proof' of Fabricated Illness Syndrome.
Isadora, London,
I would urge people to think about hard facts before jumping on their high horses with this 'campaign'! Not all parents who have had their children removed are innocent - although I would bet my last penny that they would all claim innocence!
J Jones, Dudley, UK
What are Social Services trying to do? Discourage "real" Brits from having kids? Obviously, yes. All part of Labour's destruction of the family programme. So have you decided which part of the world you're emigrating to, yet?
Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Japan
Children,Schools&Families(Wreckers) are only able to make reports that fit with court expediancy often inacurate and even lies.This organisation should be disbanded as less children would suffer then with them. Cafcass(Cafarce) also only report what a court wants to here as are appointed by them!
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
I am amazed that this is even a topic of discussion in the UK. I'm amazed at the courage this reporter must have. Even after the Texas debacle we still won't say a word against the almighty (and all-powerful) perfect children services over here. These are stories that needed to be told.
Tonya, Cleveland, USA
I find it a strange paradox that there is a huge thing over detaining people for over 42 days without charge. But people can lose their children for ever like this and there is hardly a whisper. Where is liberty
knight, aberdeen,
Only a distorted logic could claim that with hindsight a child could be saved. As hindsight occurs after an event it is impossible to apply it to the said event. Hindsight has shown systemic and indivudal failings, but does not provide a means of restitution.
Mark Adams, Stafford, England
The element of secrecy is compounded by social-workers and 'health professionals' who inform you that on no account talk about what is going on to anybody. The threats and bullying by them continue with no accountability. Thus, putting fear into the arena. Also, Corin is right in what he wrote.
Jen, London, UK
I feel that the child protection system is very one sided and extremely intimadating, the teams can blow things completly out of proportion and literally bring family to within the brink of break down if not delt with carefully, and it is my experience that the system is too black and white.
David Harrald, Bridgend, Wales
This is a political prejudice against the natural family and the middle-classes. The Marxist training of social workers teaches them that such people are oppressors, including of their own children. The working and under-classes are victims.
Corin Keiler-Lloyd, Wolverhampton,
The peer pressure and intimidation in child protection conferences and court cases to comply with the hypothesis that the children have been abused is immense. Part groupthink, part mass hysteria, part outright intimidation all come into play so that nobody dares to vote against the consensus.
Roy Everett, Ips, UK
Thank you for bringing attention to such an important and emotive issue. The system needs to be transparent and fair. It also needs to be able to reach conclusions efficiently and in an informed way. Please continue to fight for a better way!
Julia, London, England