Comments on: The ‘Too Stupid To Look After Baby’ Mum Case

By: aron

aron — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:08:42 +0000

It may be best for the child to stay with the current foster parents, but then it is not the role of social services to decide who will be the best parents, but who is an actual danger to their child.

By: Alison Stevens

Alison Stevens — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:49:08 +0000

Nobody, ever cares about Natural Parents, that have their beloved Children, taken wrongly into Care,and suffer the indignity,and trauma,of Forced Adoption,at the hands of the secret Family Courts.
Care Proceedings, have risen alarmingly since the Baby Peter tragedy and,other Local Authority failings, resulting in the death, of vulnerable Children.
In several parts of the Country, Babies are being taken from Hospital, on Emergency Orders,from Mothers, within hours of Birth, in many cases, Social Services, have very little evidence, to support, such drastic action.
The Kin care clause, outlined in the Public Law Guidelines,should be considered, before a Child is ever placed into Foster Care, but this clause is being disregarded, on a daily basis, with reference to my caseload.and it looks like in this Case, the former has not been considered.
I thank John Hemming, most sincerely, for his campaign,of highlighting,the injustice of a system, that has changed, very little, since the horrors of Cleveland,and will continue tenfold, with reference to the new Legal Aid payment cuts, to Barristers, which will force them out of Public Law Cases,forcing many Parents, to represent themselves, result, a Baby boom,for Local Authority’s,and many miscarriages of Justice,with Families being torn apart.

By: Charlotte Gore

Charlotte Gore — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:57:53 +0000

That’s a bit awkward. :S

I’m just a member of the Lib Dems. I’m not a politician. I’m actually very glad John Hemming is doing what he’s doing, it’s obvious someone needs to stick up for her.

My concern is for the child now, not the mother. Please don’t hold my own personal opinion against the party though.

By: justice prevails

justice prevails — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:55:36 +0000

how dare you god i was going to vote lib dems in because of john hemming hard work are you completely out of touch, on drugs, come see me i have newspapers articles dating back till 2004 i will educate you on forced adoption abuse carried out on children in care please do not promote yourself as being lib dem i am a campaigner and the likes of you will ruin any chance of lib dems gettin through .You should be with labour the ones who thought up the baby trafficking in first place your with the wrong party

By: Joe Otten

Joe Otten — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:33:36 +0000

Failing to express milk is hardly evidence of neglect, any more than giving a child of any age a fractionally worse than optimal diet.

I would be astonished if intelligence were that big a factor in parental competence. Is there any scientific evidence for this, or is it just the professional prejudice of experts?

By: Bunny Smedley

Bunny Smedley — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:33:19 +0000

Of course ‘we can’t honestly know whether that decision was correct’ – quite a lot of life works that way!

And heaven knows whether the decision made in this case was a good one, or even the least bad one, if you see what I mean.

All I was trying to do was to show why a mother who apparently only spent a couple of hours a day with her premature infant might have raised concerns amongst the healthcare professionals involved in the infant’s case – if only because that baby was going to need a lot more than two hours’ attention per day after coming home.

By: Charlotte Gore

Charlotte Gore — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:53:26 +0000

Thanks for all that Bunny. Very interesting.

I suppose the problem is that if Ms Mullen had behaved like you this never would have happened. Thing is we can’t honestly know whether that decision was correct – it’s still ‘pre-crime’ and all that.

Hmm the more we’re talking about this the less I like the whole thing.

By: Ian B

Ian B — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:38:24 +0000

I’m doing nothing of the sort. I just pointed out that Bunny wasn’t harmed by the system. People tend to support systems that have personally served them, while people who have been harmed are more likely to see the negative side- just as you’re more likely to be strongly opposed to racial segregation if you’re black, whereas a white person, even if not themself a racist, may not be so upset by a system that gets them a seat on the bus while others stand.

My point regarding subjectivity is an objective one, haha. Preemptive systems like this fall on the same hurdle that much of progressivism/anglosocialism does. It is the presumption that information can be objectively gained which cannot be objectively gained, and the presumption that particular parameters being measured have an objective platonic reality. The whole of the social sciences and consequent social hegemony has a facade of objectivity by using scientific-style methodology- statistical studies, bona fide mathematics and so on, but fails because the edifice is built upon moral judgements which reduce to arbitrariness- personal opinions of what is right and proper, and many of which are, from other perspectives romantic, puritanical or downright cranky. Picking one at random, there is a hegemonic presumption that a progressive factory-school education is so superior as to be the “right” of every child, and the child abuse industry have been working hard to label home-schoolers as dangerous closet child abusers. We live in a society that yells the slogan “diversity” from every rooftop, but counterhegemonic diversity of opinion is not tolerated. What counts as a “good parent” is increasingly defined by the state, and woe betide those who fail to pass the exam.

It is not contradictory to suggest that those crucified on the altar of this particular ideology may be emotionally distressed by it.

By: Lee Griffin

Lee Griffin — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:26:34 +0000

Ian, on the one hand you lambaste the supposedly subjective criteria of “baby stealers” yet on the other you try and appeal to those of us trying to remain in objectivity by resorting to the lowest of emotional subjectivity? Can you not see the irony?

By: Stu

Stu — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:22:58 +0000

It’s hard to disagree with any of that, Bunny. In fact, I don’t – I agree absolutely.

However, this woman wasn’t kept from her child because she was a heroine addict, nor because she was stealing medical supplies, nor because wasn’t expressing milk. If they’d said those things I’d definitely have less of an issue with this case. The court heard that she was kept from her child because they felt she ‘lacked the intelligence’ to care for her properly. And then she was disallowed the chance to defend herself in court because she ‘lacked the intelligence’ to instruct counsel.

As far as I can tell, that argument boils down to ‘the nurses didn’t like the cut of her jib’.