A couple regarded as
too intellectually slow to be parents must give up their two children for
adoption, a high court judge as ruled. Mrs Justice Pauffley said they could
not keep their four year old daughter and 14-month-old son even though they
have never harmed or neglected them.
She agreed with the
social workers who claimed the children would be at risk if they continued
to live at home. The Judge rebuked the couple for their ‘unreasonable’
refusal to give up their children and said their desire to raise them was
‘wholly unrealistic’.
The children were
taken from the family home last year, even though the social workers
admitted they were loved, clean, well dressed and fed.
The case as caused an
outcry with protests from charities, academics and politicians.
There have also been
protests over the secrecy of the family courts and social workers at Essex
council who attempted to silence discussion and criticism of the case and
the legal proceedings.
The couple, who
cannot be named will now loose all contact with their children, who are
currently with foster parents. They last had contact in November. They had
challenged a earlier adoption order made by a judge in a family court.
After the High Court
judgement, the 28-year-old mother, who often broke down in tears during the
three-day hearing, said: “they made me out to be completely stupid and they
said I had no relationship with my little girl. ‘But we used to do lots of
things together. She liked to play with my hair and help me change the baby.
‘I love her and her
brother and nothing will help me get over this. They have talked about
counselling or me getting a job to take my mind off things but I cannot
carry on unless I get them back’. The couple will do not know whether they
will be allowed to say good-bye before the children are adopted.
The mother said: ‘I
don’t think it would be a good idea to see them because it would upset my
little girl because she might think we have come to bring her home’. The
couple have been told they will receive photographs or a video of the
children twice a year.
The 37 year-old
father said: ‘That is all we will have. A social worker told us we could see
them when they are eighteen. Everyone says we have done nothing wrong but we
are being punished. It is breaking our hearts.’
The mother as an IQ
of 60. She can read and write although as difficulty in understanding ideas.
The father has been assessed as having no learning difficulty. He has worked
for the same firm for 22 years.
Social Workers said
their daughter had ‘suffered significant emotional harm’ because of the
mothers’ lack of responsiveness and the fact neither parent could
‘demonstrate an ability consistently to provide stimulation’.
The judge said: ‘They
are decent people but are not capable of managing the intricate anticipatory
of parenting.’
Email:
s.doughty@dailymail.co.uk
Dictators who tore a
happy family apart
Council Attack 'Inaccurate' Coverage
Essex County Council
publishes the Judgement?
Eric Pickles MP
ESSEX FORCED
ADOPTIONS: Sends a Letter of Support to the parents and calls on the
government to stop the secrecy in Family Courts.
Couple 'Too Slow' For Kids
A high court judge has ruled that a couple are too
intellectually slow to be parents.
Their two children must be adopted and
they can not see them until they reach 18.
Sky News 18 Aug 2005
DAILY MAIL -
Saturday, 7th May 2005
"YOU'RE NOT CLEVER ENOUGH TO HAVE
CHILDREN - SO WE ARE TAKING THEM AWAY"
Full News Video
357kbps
The photographs on the sitting room
walls are of happy times in a young family’s life.
In pride of place are snapshots of a heartbreakingly pretty toddler the very
image of her mother at the same age.
They chronicle her
growing up playing on a slide, sitting on here mums knee and smiling into
the camera. More recent pictures show the new addition, a little brother,
still a baby shaking a rattle and gazing at his father.
Yet this is all the
parents have left of their children. For the three year old girl and eleven
month old boy were taken away from them by Essex county council last October
and they have not seen the children for nearly six months.
In three weeks time,
their son and daughter will be adopted by a new “forever mummy and daddy”,
as the social services appallingly saccharine jargon puts it, and contact
with their birth parents will be reduced to twice yearly letters and
photographs.
So, what terrible
crime did this couple commit to have been punished so cruelly? Did they beat
their children? Was there sexual abuse? Were the children left roaming the
streets?
No. But the reasons
for the brutal fracturing of this family are just as shocking. For these
parents have been judged to be “too slow” intellectually to have children.
The local authority
has ruled that the youngsters were at risk of neglect because their mother
didn’t follow proper routines, took too long to brush their teeth and change
the baby’s nappies, left the little girl to play alone, had difficulty
learning how to cook simple meals and did not encourage her daughter to sit
on a potty.
Perversely, the
father was criticised for being too rigid in his routines with the children,
and for becoming irritated by interference from the local authority.
Social workers who
assessed the couple admitted that the children were loved, kept clean,
well-dressed and fed-but still recommended that they be removed because the
parents were not intelligent enough to understand the children’s needs.
That judgement has,
of course, had a devastating effect on the couple, who cannot be named in
order to protect the children’s identity, and raises the most fundamental
human question of what makes a fit parent-and do social workers have the
right to make such judgements?
In this case, the
mother, who is 28, has an IQ of 60 and was diagnosed as having a mild
learning disability as a child. She went to a special school and learned top
read and write, but is candid about the difficulties she has in
understanding simple ideas.
Surely, she explains
that she likes to have written instructions so she can absorb them at her
own pace, but she takes a full part in our discussions about the children.
The father who is 37 and her partner of ten years has also been described as
having learning difficulties despite expert assessments to the contrary
He is an
unsophisticated gently spoken man, but takes his responsibilities as
breadwinner and father very seriously. He has worked for a large
manufacturing company for 22 years, and does much of the house work and
cooking.
He has a detailed
grasp of the chain of events that have destroyed his family, recalling
myriad names, dates and official decisions with ease.
Sitting together in
their two bed-bedroom council flat, their distress is palpable. The mother
says;” I want my children back. Without them I can’t live, really”.
When the social
workers say they have taken them because I don’t have a routine for the
children, it isn’t fair. They say I can’t do the things the way they want me
to.
They think I am
stupid-but I am not. I have always taught my little girl about road safety.
They think she will overtake me and be looking after me, but she loved to
help with the baby and everything.
She struggles to
control her emotions as she recalls the day her children were take from her.
“When they took them,
I went barmy I had to go into hospital because I was so upset. We have been
trying to get them back ever since.
“But they told us the
children are having a new forever mum and dad and that our little girl
doesn’t like us anymore and is not asking for us-and that she is drawing
pictures of her new forever mum and dad, not us. It really upsets me.
The father adds” They
took the children away because they thought our little girls development was
delayed and her need were not being met.
“They said she was
slower than others her age-she was slow in walking and her speech was late
developing, but she talked in the end and once she started walking she was
soon running. Children develop at different rates, don’t they?
“But they said her
needs were not being met and she wouldn’t reach her full potential if she
stayed with us.
The case was heard in
the family courts, which operate in complete secrecy. There powerful courts
which deal with thousands of families each year, sit without jury or public
scrutiny to protect the children.
The corollary is that
parents are left fighting desperate battles behind closed doors. Those who
protest or challenge this draconian state of affairs are threatened with
imprisonment, as a lone county councillor discovered when he took up the
couple’s case.
Essex county council
took out an injunction to silence Barry Aspinell when he began investigating
the case, but he refused to be cowed. The liberal democrat councillor risked
going to prison for contempt of court in order to bring the case into the
public domain, and last week, he won the battle to discuss it.
He said “There has
never been any accusation of harm to the children. This is about the parents
IQ.I think it is absolutely disgraceful and heart rendering and the local
authority has allowed a section of its operations to make a judgement on
people like that. I have called for a full enquiry into this sorry business
as a matter of urgency”.
Essex county councils
general scrutiny committee looked at whether it had been over zealous in
placing children with adoptive parents last year after national concerns
were raised about the growing number of adoptions. It reported that Essex
“meets or surpasses all national requirements”.
The committee did,
however concede there was room for improvement in how the council dealt with
both parents.
Tom Smith-Hughes,
chairman of the general scrutiny committee, said” It is clear that in
placing the well-being of children at the centre of the adoption process in
line with national policy, more can be done to explain the process to both
parents. I am glad such improvements are being put in place”.
But it appears that
for this couple, nothing can stop the final adoption hearing later this
month. The couple know there is little they can do, but are adamant their
story should be told.
Their daughter was
born a healthy 7lb 13ox in June 2001.The couple had been together for six
years, but the baby was unplanned, they admit, a shock.
The mother developed
post-natal depression following a difficult birth, and was put on anti
depressants to help her cope. But she claims she settled down well to
motherhood with the help of her partner and health visitors.
It was when the baby
was three months old that Essex social services got involved. There were
concerns about the child’s weight-gain. And a social worker was asked to
join the learning disabilities team and health visitors in keeping an eye on
the family. But within twelve months, there were ten different professionals
involved.
“There has been too
much interfering, too many people watching us says the mother.
Hardly surprisingly,
being under such daily scrutiny began to take its toll on the couple.
Initially they co-operated with the authorities-even welcoming two social
workers into the family home between 7.45am and 5.45pm every day for three
weeks-but they felt totally betrayed when the official reports on their
behaviour were, they say, both inaccurate and unfair.
The first, completed
in June 2003 said that both parents had “some degree of learning
disabilities”
The father flatly
denies that he ever had a disability, and the error was reluctantly
acknowledged by the local authority almost a year later.
There was a great
detail about the mother’s bathroom habits, while a whole section on how long
she took to brush her teeth in the morning and the effect this would have on
their child.
More seriously it
repeated allegations that the father had a tendency to lose his temper with
his partner, although the claims were based on hearsay.
It also stated that
the police were called once by a neighbour who claimed to have heard
shouting and the baby screaming inside the flat. Essex police confirmed that
they had responded to the call but” had no concerns at the house, there had
been no signs of a disturbance and no one was making any allegations.
The first report
concluded that the child was loved and her parents wanted the best for her.
But the mother was
accused of failing to provide” adequate stimulation to allow her to reach
her full potential and there was a warning that if the child had that
stimulation she may well overtake her mother in her abilities and become her
carer. Whatever happens the parents couldn’t win.
The child was put on
the at risk register by social services two months later under the scrutiny
of “neglect”, and the authority applied for an interim care order for the
girl in march 2004.
One month later, with
the mother pregnant again, a group of professionals involved in the
day-to-day care of the family met to decide whether to put the couples
unborn son on the at risk register as well.
At this meeting a
support worker said a second child would not be any more stressful than any
other mother, and one of the health visitors said that the couple were
coping quite well with the right support, but the mother lost confidence
when she was put under constant scrutiny by experts.
The issue of the
fathers temper was raised again, but one local authority worker said that
the anger-management sessions arranged by the council was discontinued
because “he did not have a problem” and another pointed out that he had lost
his temper only when frustrated by interference in his family. Then, in an
astonishing voice face, the meeting voted by four to one to take the girl
off the at-risk register and take no action on the unborn child.
But the chairman of
the meeting was outraged by the decision and demanded that his dissent be
recorded, saying later it was the wrong decision and “the couples disability
does impact on their ability to parent their children.
He then called on
another meeting less than a month later, on the basis of a second assessment
report, and took another vote. This time the professionals decided by four
votes to two to put both children on the at risk register.
The couple, who went
to many of the meetings to discuss their children’s future, are at a loss to
explain how things changed so rapidly.
“At the meeting last
April, the father says, a lot of people were supporting us and our little
girl was taken off the at risk register and they voted not to put the baby,
who wasn’t even born, on the register. But a month later, the children were
put back on the at risk register. How can this happen?
But matters took a
turn for the worse. A social worker called at the flat to tell them court
proceedings were being started to remove the children from them altogether,
and on October 8 last year they were taken away.
The mother says “They
were taken into council care at the court hearing. The judge said neither of
us had done anything wrong. I was told it was because I had jogged routines-
I didn’t do things in the right order.
“They took the
children away while we were still in court and they were being looked after
by their grandmother.
The father takes up
the story as his wife begins to cry, saying “There were two social workers
waiting outside my mums door for the verdict. When the doorbell went, my
little girl ran to the door because she thought it was me.. My mum was too
upset to put them in the car, so the social workers did it.
“It was about ten
days before we saw them, and then we had contact for only one-and-a-half
hours every week at a family centre. It was very difficult for us and out
little girl. The poor thing didn’t know what was going on.
That slender thread
of contact was broken in November after, driven to distraction, the mother
pulled the social workers hair at the end of a traumatic visit. She says;
they wouldn’t let us take photos of the children and they were criticising
me for everything I did, and I had enough so I pulled her hair. I hear she
is still off with stress and we have not seen the children since.
Essex county council
said in a statement yesterday that its priority in every case was to ensure
the well being of the children concerned, pointing out that cases can be
complex and that the court takes the final decision.
It adds “The view of
Essex county council is that a loving and secure family gives a child the
best possible start in life. The vast majority of the work of our children’s
social work team is to support families through difficult times to keep them
together.
“In a very small
number of cases, this simply isn’t possible. The story of a child who is
adopted or fostered rarely has a happy beginning, but so often this gives
the child the opportunity and security that only a loving home can provide”.
Which still leaves
the couple struggling to understand what they have done wrong and to cope
with the thought that they can never be parents again?
The father says
quietly;” Last November the community nurse told us that any baby we had
would be put on the at risk register and taken away.
His partner adds;” We
don’t want any more babies, I only wanted two anyway.
The children will
never be forgotten. The couple sent presents for their daughter and son at
Christmas, but were not allowed to see them open them.
The father says;”
Christmas was horrendous, We gave the children a loads of presents-two big
sack loads, but we didn’t know that they got them until a few weeks ago. It
is their birthdays next month, but we can’t see them. It is too much to
bear.
We have heard our
little boy has had a brain scan, but we don’t know why because they won’t
tell us”
The mother adds;” In
court, they said our little girl would have a better life, but I said she
had a good life with us”. We went to Clacton to a holiday caravan and on day
trips to parks and a farm place.
“We were just told
that they were going to be adopted and that was the end of it. Our only
contact is a twice yearly post box, when we can send a letters and get
pictures of them. That makes me so upset because I don’t really want to do
that. I miss them and I wonder what they think”
The Editor of the Daily Mail makes
a judgement on future articles by the public perception/response of/to such
articles. The feedback is one indication.
E-mail Fiona Barton
fiona.barton@dailymail.co.uk
or telephone Fiona on her direct line:
0207 9386275 NOW!
TIMES
- Sunday August 14th
2005
You can have babies but
you can’t keep them
MINETTE MARRIN
Source:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article
There can be no greater anguish for a
woman than to have her children forcibly taken away from her, for ever. The
feelings of a father could be equally painful, I imagine. That is what has
happened, in a case reported last week, to a mother and father who are
considered by
Essex
social services to be unable to bring up their children properly. The mother
has a learning disability and an IQ of 60. The father has also been
described by some as having a learning disability, though he has had expert
assessment to the contrary.
Their four-year-old daughter and
14-month-old son were taken away from them for adoption last year, and last
week a High Court judge upheld that decision. Mrs Justice Pauffley said that
their refusal to give up their children was “unreasonable” and their desire
to bring them up themselves was “wholly unrealistic”.
I have no idea where truth and
justice lie in this case, and I am not going to venture an opinion. All that
is clear is the cruel pain involved for the distraught parents. And it
reminded me yet again of something that has angered me for years — the
painful mess of confusion, contradiction, bullying and skewed priorities
that informs the politics of intellectual disability.
On the same day as the hearing I
received a letter from a reader that precisely makes my point. (I have
permission to use it anonymously.) “I have a sister,” he writes, “now 41,
who has a learning disability; she suffers from cerebral palsy and motor
dyspraxia. Her mental age was once assessed at eight or nine. She has been a
resident in a very small home run by a well-known charity for some years but
recently its policy has changed and my parents and family have felt that
they have been pushing my sister beyond her capabilities — some of the
things my sister has been told she can do if she wants, e.g. drive a car,
have a baby, etc, would be laughable if it were not for the seriousness of
the issue.
“Today, our whole family has been
shocked to learn that my sister has ‘chosen’ to leave her small group home
and ‘live with her boyfriend’. This has been devastating news. Not only do
we know that she will not be able to cope with her own disabilities, but
this ‘boyfriend’ also has a learning disability, a history of erratic
behaviour and suffers from epileptic fits. We feel that the charity and
social services have finally achieved their goal; they can demonstrate to
the world another ‘success’ and pat themselves on their backs and rid
themselves of ‘interfering parents’.”
On the one hand social services
and other professionals are encouraging a vulnerable person to move out of a
safe situation into a very difficult one and, perhaps, to have a baby. Yet
on the other hand social services are very quick to remove a baby from a mother with
a learning disability. The contradiction is glaring. In today’s aggressive
culture of disability rights, a woman with an intellectual impairment is
pressed into taking up her right to independence (especially from her
parents), and her right to sexual activity and to have a baby, but somehow,
when it comes to her right to keep her baby — well, that’s a very different
thing.
I have again and again come
across versions of this painful and shocking contradiction, because of my
lifelong interest in people with learning disabilities, through somebody
close to me. Some years ago a woman with pronounced learning disabilities
whom I knew became pregnant. Sure enough her baby was taken away from her at
birth (with good reason). When I asked why she had not been protected from
getting pregnant I was told the details were confidential, but that everyone
had an equal right to sex and to giving birth — but not, it seems, to a
baby.
Deeply shocked by this attitude,
I began to research the politics of disability, and I soon discovered that
this approach was part of a highly developed, rights-led view, which insists
on normalisation — the idea that people with disabilities, no matter how
grave, have exactly the same rights as anyone else and must be actively
encouraged to exercise those rights. It’s easy to understand the good
intentions behind this idea — though not the aggressive animosity of the
more driven activists in this field.
It’s also easy to understand the
idea when applied to people of normal intelligence who have disabilities.
But when it comes to people whose disability is having very low
intelligence, then encouraging, perhaps pressing, them to exercise their
right to have babies is shameful irresponsibility.
Yet some people in social
services and care professionals generally are proud of encouraging and
enabling people in just this way. A senior social work academic told me,
when I asked him why professionals were so obsessed with encouraging adults
with learning disabilities to have sex, that it was “one of the best
indicators of independence”, particularly independence from families.
A very senior care services
manager told me recently that his proudest achievement was to enable a man
and woman with moderate (not just mild) learning disabilities to marry and
have a flat on their own and two babies; the husband was also blind.
This idealistic professional agreed
with my suggestion that this achievement would involve 24-hour support, from
a team of three full-time care workers, and that this might possibly be
unaffordable. Besides, I asked, what about the children? It is hard to
imagine the difficulties of normal children growing up with parents who are
tragically ill-equipped to understand their needs.
It would be infinitely better,
surely, not to encourage such vulnerable people to have children. It would
be better, surely, to encourage them to use safe, long-term contraception.
(I am completely opposed to sterilisation.) I don’t think any civilised
person would feel able to say to someone with an intellectual impairment
that he or she should not hope for love, or for sex, and I don’t think it
would be right to put any obstacles in his or her way. But I do think it is
wrong to encourage them to imagine that they can hope, realistically to have
children and bring them up.
The odds are against it
regardless of how much “support” is offered — and it is cruel to encourage
them. Most social workers and social services departments are much too wise
to do that. There are still too many, however, who remain in the grip of a
destructive ideology.
Also:
When love is not enough
Guardian Unlimited, UK -
Aug 11, 2005
Council rejects 'child snatcher' claims
Guardian Unlimited, UK -
Aug 11, 2005
Response from Tracy Chapman,
Councillor in charge of children's services in Essex
Colchester Gazette ....Tom Parks Wednesday 17 August 2005
