I watched ITV’s Exposure – Don’t Take My Child on catch up last night.
I have mixed feelings about it.
It is a piece of TV that raises important and difficult issues, and contained some hard hitting and well argued discussion of some of the problems with the child protection system in England & Wales, from some eminent sources including Martha Cover, chair of the Association of Lawyers for Children, and Mark Hedley, recently retired High Court Judge.
But ITV need ratings, so they spiced up the substance with predictable soundbites, horror stories and hyperbole. And just for good measure they chucked in a whole load of Ian Josephs and tossed it all up. What an unholy salad.
Those of you who read this (or any) family law blog will be familiar with Ian Josephs. He pops up time and time again on the comments thread of many posts, his views are well known and oft repeated. He is opposed to all non-consensual adoption (“forced adoption”). He is entitled to that view. Many hold it. We regularly disagree about issues around adoption and care proceedings, usually politely. No doubt each of us feels that we are providing an important informational counterpoint to the other’s wrong views.
This programme began with Ian Josephs and an observation that what we do in this jurisdiction – by sometimes removing babies and children from their families and placing them for adoption without their parents consent – is not something that many other countries do. But in reality this was a programme not about whether we should have a some “forced adoption”, but a programme about when that is appropriate and how often it should happen. But somewhere along the line the producers got those two issues a bit muddled.
There was a great TV programme waiting to be made, expanding upon Martha Cover’s lucid points about the tension between 26 weeks and adoption as a last resort, and drawing out Mark Hedley’s observations about a tendency towards sloppy analysis being a chronic problem. A programme looking at the impact of recent decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on the rigour with which courts are scrutinising plans for adoption – both the sloppy and the well thought through ones, where adoption may exceptionally be truly the last resort. Sadly that increased scrutiny, the emerging realisation by Local Authorities that they need to properly consider all reasonable means to avoid adoption, was not a part of the story that was told. It was as if Re B never happened.
Every time I thought the programme was about to go there and explore those stories, every time Martha Cover said something wise, up popped Ian Josephs with his advice to women to flee the jurisdiction, his golden rules, his unshakeable belief that forced adoption is always wrong and his interventions are always helpful…
In the context of a series of case studies of families who had apparently been done an injustice the platform given to campaigners who encourage vulnerable parents to flee the jurisdiction and to refuse to cooperate is really concerning. It may make good TV (arguably) but showing the web page with the golden rules on it is in my view just irresponsible. Quite apart from the fact that, in my view, following the Golden Rules is practically a recipe for a negative outcome in care proceedings; even Ian Josephs, when asked, will heavily caveat his advice on when to flee and when to stay – but no such caveats found their way into the programme. There are times when Ian Josephs does not advise running – but those nuances were utterly lost on the cutting room floor. This programme will have done nothing to encourage or assist parents to engage with the child protection / court process, but it may well have convinced a few to run or at least to disengage – a course of action which could ultimately result in them losing their children when they might otherwise have kept them. And although there was a moment when Josephs was asked some mildly challenging questions about whether or not he was putting children at risk, nobody made or attempted to make the case for some non-consensual adoption sometimes (even if far far less than now), and nobody articulated the position contrary to the Josephs position, namely that there are significant risks associated with the Josephs approach – in which I include the risks both to the innocent parent and the child of either an abusive parent or an innocent one. No counterpoint.
There are injustices. The government pro-adoption rhetoric is insistent, simplistic and chilling. The 26 weeks time limit causes much anxiety amongst many legal professionals (and parents) for good reason. There are cases where the wrong decision is made, where children are taken from their families when it is not truly necessary. Some examples of this were shown on this programme, and the description by one set of parents who were ultimately cleared of injuring their baby of being caught up in a process are familiar comments to those of us who represent parents. Those are grave, grave injustices, huge family traumas. BUT. The risks of running, hiding, or ignoring are far far higher in most cases than the risks of facing the issue and challenging the social workers through the proper processes. And some of the case studies were very lightly sketched indeed, rather selectively portrayed or not really representative. The father from Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam) featured heavily but the impression was very much of the removal having been wrongful or without basis – it was said in terms that there had been no imminent risk, and yet as a matter of law the court must have approved an EPO precisely on that basis. The RRO judgment in Re J does not tell us the outcome of the case, and does not indicate any irregularity in the making of the EPO. It is of course difficult to report fully fleshed out cases due to reporting restrictions, but the effect I suspect of this collection of case studies will have been to instil fear rather than to inform, to induce panic in parents who really do not need to panic, in parents who really need to keep a level head and think carefully before they act.
Definitely worth a watch before catch up runs out, but a slightly disjointed experience and a bit of a missed opportunity.
Ian Josephs will of course have a right of reply to this post – although not a platform to repeat all his well known views several times.
The examples in the programme, do not put Social Services or indeed the system in a good light, atrocious really.
If a Social Worker cannot tell the difference between a Baby P situation and those in this programme, then they should not be in the job.
Problem is it seems a hefty chunk of SW’s cannot, little common sense and some lawyers plus the some of the judiciary are not much better.
There is no defending this system because it simply does not work well enough.
I think your focus on 26 weeks and Ian Joseph is not helpful when commenting about the problems of the system. These problems were here before 26 weeks and before Ian Joseph appeared on this programme.
Until many of those who work in this area understand the depth of the problem regarding shoddy practice and a system that sidelines parents/grandparents very often rather than involving them, or often ignores or won’t face up to real abuse, then little will change.
Our ire should be used to ensure that substantial public scrutiny takes place and those hiding behind unnecessary privacy to continue bad practice are exposed and then processes changed.
The Police, NHS, Armed Forces, BBC, Parliament etc. All have an increasing level of public scrutiny because they have hidden behind secrecy arguments allowing dreadful practices to continue.
Why should Social Services, the Courts not also be increasingly scrutinised in the open?
Unless we think that social workers, lawyers, judges are special beings who are not prone to poor practice behind closed doors, unlike the Police, NHS workers etc>
I agree there should be substantial public scrutiny and that bad practice should be exposed. I don’t think that is inconsistent with anything that I’ve said.
Ian Josephs is a new name to me but I can sympathise with his views – as I can with those cases where the child really would be better off beyond the clutches of an unfit mother. Luckuily I deal mostly with loving parents in priviate law but in the few public law cases that come my way (the first being the [edited] family in 2001), I have to say I find he forced adoption when exercised to have been inapproaporaite for both paretns and grandparents. I think it is the very permancy of the process that is so distasteful.
Fair enough familoo and fully accepted.
An ‘independent’ Regulator such as Ofsted, CQC, IPCC, FCA etc. is needed.
An independent regulator that take action against local authorities and individuals who work in the system such as Cafcass, social workers, lawyers and judges when complaints from the public are upheld.
An independent regulator that can check whether Courts, Cafcass, Local Authorities and lawyers are meeting national standards.
It is all wing and a prayer presently, with the system judging its own. Not good enough anymore.
Far more media attention necessary. We are after all talking about the most important matters in peoples lives generally – Children.
The muddling through that has been going on forever is not good enough in today’s world.
All those bodies have independent regulation of one sort of another:
CAFCASS – ofsted
Local Authorities – ofsted, CQC, local govt ombudsman
Social workers (including cafcass) Health and Care Professions Council
Judges – office for judicial complaints
lawyers – bar standards board / solicitors regulation authority / legal ombudsman
the court service doesnt have an independent regulator as such, although they are under the auspices of the moj (as is cafcass now), who monitor court performance (albeit monitoring seems to mean bare statistical analysis).
Incidentally the emerging feature of the system, mckenzie friends, don’t have any regulation at all, independent or otherwise, and usually not so much as an indemnity insurance policy.
Perhaps the problem is not a lack of independent regulation as much as a lack of joined up independent regulation? But I’m not entirely sure how you would go about regulating that breadth of practice / professions under one roof…
I’ve looked at most of the complaints process, some relevant (lawyers) the rest a minefield for complainants.
Yep MF’s without insurance but some do have it. Regulation might be nice for them as well but users need faith in the regulators, which is not there for the most part with existing bunch.
I think you are right, ‘lack of joined up independent regulation’ is where I probably should have headed in my comments.
Indeed difficult but not impossible with commitment and funds (usual basics)…
Yes the cutting room floor reduced 7 hours of interview to the sole topic of my helping parents flee the country Less than 1% of parents who contact me take this route, . they are inevitably pregnant ladies who have been told by UK social services that their babies will be taken at birth with a view to adoption;which when “forced” is in my view a crime and should always be avoided.
I strongly advise them to contact the social workers in their new country and “get in first” with their story and submit to these local s before the UK authorities track th down these mothers and “rubbish them” via emails;
I also explain that social workers in countries such as S.Ireland,France,Spain etc are usually a friendly,compassionate,and understanding bunch unlike their aggressive and often unpleasant UK counterparts. The UK lot will of course use every effort imaginable to try and retrieve the baby from its parents and from the perfectly capable and efficient local social services so that they can mark up another successful forced adoption once they have the baby in the UK.
The most important contribution in the programme came from Martha Cover(chair of the asociation of lawyers for children) when she stated that she was in favour of the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) being applied in the family courts instead of the preponderance of evidence (51%?)which is the test they now apply to hapless parents accused of abusing or neglecting their children.
This comes very close to the position that I put forward continually during about 7 hours of filming in France: “no punishment without crime” .We have laws in the UK and we punish those who break those laws.But we also punish those who do NOT break those laws ! Illogical and wrong.Before anyone says that family courts do not punish but just act in the best interests of the children I invite them to ask any mother whose baby has been taken at birth and later adopted if she feels punished or not !Sir James Munby himself said that this would be the worst thing anyone could suffer since the abolition of capital punishment.
Lastly I also denied that family courts treat “adoption without consent” as a last resort to be used when no other remedy is possible or feasible;Other European countries find solutions that do not include forced adoptions so the UK could do the same proving forced adoption to be a remedy of choice not of last resort !
I have to say I did not spot Martha Cover saying that she supported the criminal standard of proof in the programme. Can you tell me where it is so I can view it again at the right spot?
Strange ! At least 5 people confirm that she did say precisely that and noted it because it seemed so important! I can no longer find it after writing to congratulate her on such a radical idea for change so perhap sshe thought better of it and had it edited out of the latest link ….It did seem too good to be true……….
Sorry, do you mean that it was in the programme that was aired but has been removed since? Why would anyone do that?
BECAUSE ON SECOND THOUGHTS PERHAPS THIS LADY THOUGHT BETTER OF HER SUGGESTION,? I wrote a letter congratulating her and that might have provoked such an action.
Next time I will be more discreet ! Why not ask her yourself?
Well I will. But seriously – are you suggesting that she has asked ITV to edit the show after airing and they have done so? Now that really is a conspiracy theory!!
I REALLY DON’T KNOW AND I certainly think you exaggerate with your conspiracy theory ! Maybe an error corrected,maybe a piece shortened maybe cutting room cut .Or believe if you will that I and several other viewrs made the whole thing up ! Wel we didn’t because to me it was by far the most significat thing said on the programe;
Either way the system will remain unchanged ………..