UK, More use of a vague reason to remove children

More use of a vague reason to remove children

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...6/nbaby226.xml

By David Harrison, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:42am BST 26/08/2007

Fran Lyon is the latest parent to be told her baby will be taken away at
birth because social services believe she is capable of "emotionally
abusing" a child that has not yet been born.

The term is hugely controversial because it is vague, undefined in law,
and leaves room for many injustices.

It is used, however, to justify removing a growing number of children
from their parents, many of them at birth or in their first year.
advertisement

Last year, 6,700 children were registered for emotional abuse. They
represent 21 per cent of all children placed on the Child Protection
Register, compared with only 14 per cent a decade ago - a 50 per cent
increase.

Some 5,100 children were registered for physical abuse and 2,600 for
sexual abuse. But while the numbers of children in these categories are
falling, the number of those in the "emotional abuse" group, which
covers children who have not been injured and have not complained, is
growing steadily.

The Department of Health's definition of what constitutes emotional
abuse includes "conveying to children that they are worthless or
inadequate" and says that "some level of emotional abuse is involved in
all types of ill-treatment of a child, though it may occur alone".

Local authorities' definitions vary widely. Some say that swearing and
"discriminatory remarks" are forms of emotional abuse, while others say
emotional abuse cannot be a reason for removing a baby at birth but has
to be judged over a period of time, after the child is born.

Critics say the danger is that over-zealous social workers and
psychiatrists can cause children to be removed from their parents simply
because they might suffer low self-esteem, something which could be made
much worse by the trauma of a succession of foster parents.

These critics want more "intellectual rigour" and transparency
introduced into the system, more open family courts, and every parent
whose child is put in care to be given clear reasons why the action is
being taken.

On Aug 25, 7:18 pm, fx wrote:
More use of a vague reason to remove children

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...07/08/26/nbaby...

By David Harrison, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:42am BST 26/08/2007

Fran Lyon is the latest parent to be told her baby will be taken away at
birth because social services believe she is capable of "emotionally
abusing" a child that has not yet been born.

The term is hugely controversial because it is vague, undefined in law,
and leaves room for many injustices.

It is used, however, to justify removing a growing number of children
from their parents, many of them at birth or in their first year.
advertisement

Last year, 6,700 children were registered for emotional abuse. They
represent 21 per cent of all children placed on the Child Protection
Register, compared with only 14 per cent a decade ago - a 50 per cent
increase.

Some 5,100 children were registered for physical abuse and 2,600 for
sexual abuse. But while the numbers of children in these categories are
falling, the number of those in the "emotional abuse" group, which
covers children who have not been injured and have not complained, is
growing steadily.

The Department of Health's definition of what constitutes emotional
abuse includes "conveying to children that they are worthless or
inadequate" and says that "some level of emotional abuse is involved in
all types of ill-treatment of a child, though it may occur alone".

Local authorities' definitions vary widely. Some say that swearing and
"discriminatory remarks" are forms of emotional abuse, while others say
emotional abuse cannot be a reason for removing a baby at birth but has
to be judged over a period of time, after the child is born.

Critics say the danger is that over-zealous social workers and
psychiatrists can cause children to be removed from their parents simply
because they might suffer low self-esteem, something which could be made
much worse by the trauma of a succession of foster parents.

These critics want more "intellectual rigour" and transparency
introduced into the system, more open family courts, and every parent
whose child is put in care to be given clear reasons why the action is
being taken.

My daughters children were taken from her simply because she has
schizophrenia, they were never abused, neglected or drug - exposed.
She was given the wrong meds and "said" something inappropriate to a
Tulare County CA social worker - we cannot even visit them.

Linda in California, Visalia, Tulare County

On Aug 27, 8:00 am, wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:18 pm, fx wrote:





More use of a vague reason to remove children

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...07/08/26/nbaby...

By David Harrison, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:42am BST 26/08/2007

Fran Lyon is the latest parent to be told her baby will be taken away at
birth because social services believe she is capable of "emotionally
abusing" a child that has not yet been born.

The term is hugely controversial because it is vague, undefined in law,
and leaves room for many injustices.

It is used, however, to justify removing a growing number of children
from their parents, many of them at birth or in their first year.
advertisement

Last year, 6,700 children were registered for emotional abuse. They
represent 21 per cent of all children placed on the Child Protection
Register, compared with only 14 per cent a decade ago - a 50 per cent
increase.

Some 5,100 children were registered for physical abuse and 2,600 for
sexual abuse. But while the numbers of children in these categories are
falling, the number of those in the "emotional abuse" group, which
covers children who have not been injured and have not complained, is
growing steadily.

The Department of Health's definition of what constitutes emotional
abuse includes "conveying to children that they are worthless or
inadequate" and says that "some level of emotional abuse is involved in
all types of ill-treatment of a child, though it may occur alone".

Local authorities' definitions vary widely. Some say that swearing and
"discriminatory remarks" are forms of emotional abuse, while others say
emotional abuse cannot be a reason for removing a baby at birth but has
to be judged over a period of time, after the child is born.

Critics say the danger is that over-zealous social workers and
psychiatrists can cause children to be removed from their parents simply
because they might suffer low self-esteem, something which could be made
much worse by the trauma of a succession of foster parents.

These critics want more "intellectual rigour" and transparency
introduced into the system, more open family courts, and every parent
whose child is put in care to be given clear reasons why the action is
being taken.

My daughters children were taken from her simply because she has
schizophrenia, they were never abused, neglected or drug - exposed.
She was given the wrong meds and "said" something inappropriate to a
Tulare County CA social worker - we cannot even visit them.

Linda in California, Visalia, Tulare County

Are you going to join the Family Rights activism movemement?

Thanks for your comments.
My condolences.