Dr Hibbert, the psychiatrist who has been accused of malpractice by several mothers inside the family justice system, is currently before his disciplinary panel and some of the answers he’s giving to the way he treated his patients are startling.
Working on behalf of social services, Dr Hibbert was tasked with assessing whether mothers were fit to parent or whether they should have their children removed from them. He came into the public eye after a series of bizarre and unprofessional events which came to light after several mothers complained about his treatment.
Dr Hibbert has since shut down his practice, always a curious sign, and some of the answers he has given to the disciplinary panel are equally curious. There appears to be a blatantly cavalier attitude, not just towards the mothers he was entrusted with, but also in relation to the fastidiousness his duties required.
And is that make up he’s wearing? We just can’t help but think Dr Hibbert is seeing this hearing as an opportunity to flaunt himself; the mark of a truly confused and narcissistic human being?
The hearing continues.
Thank you to Miss A for sharing this piece with us.
Peter Dale said:
Miss A has shown great courage and tenacity in pursuing this case.
I agree, Peter.
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
see = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/9178021/The-doctor-who-took-my-baby-away.html
Hi B, these are all on the blog, and more besides. Just type Dr Hibbert into the search engine if you’d like to follow the updates.
Roger Crawford said:
Well done, Miss A. It was the story of Dr. Hibbert that finally convinced me that mothers suffer as much in our Family Justice system as men. I always knew that injustice was done to both and most of my campaigning on roofs etc. acknowledged that, but it seemed to me at the time that it was Dads who were more often wronged. Thanks to people like Miss A I now know different. There was an article in the Mail the other day about a family who lost their child/grandchild for no good reason, and it is suspected that it was to meet ‘adoption targets’. This must stop. I remain of the view that each parent should have a presumption in law to see their children, unless there are compelling and proven reasons why they should not. In the vast majority of cases this would truly be in the child’s best interests as well. I feel that the ‘Paramountcy principle’ can be, and often is, misused. It enables ‘experts’ like Dr. Hibbert to state that they are working in the child’s best interests wheareas in reality it is a wicked lie, and the views of doctors and social workers are taken at face value by the Courts. There has to be a better way, and parents and children deserve better than this.
Dr Hibbert is not a one off.
Decent parents are losing their children every day of the week by psychologists reports rubber stamping lies and false allegations by bad and or malicious social workers. Cross reference of every case will turn up all the flaws and show just how serious the matter is.
As it stands the mess caused by social service bad practice will last for decades as those lost and stolen children grow up damaged and the parents suffering life long trauma and serious health issues.
THIS IS CALLED HUMAN TRAFFICKING! Psychiatry is WITCHCRAFT! NOT MEDICINE! NOT SCIENCE! ALL COMMONWEALTH CUNTRIES TRAFFIC CHILDREN FOR PROFITS & GOVT ‘ELITE’ PEDOPHILES http://www.pa-pa.ca/ https://web.archive.org/web/20080423183643/http://www.sosquebec.com/ CHURCH & “STATE” ARE ‘ONE’ regarding CHILD RAPE, TRAFFICKING, victimization, ABUSE, killing, stealing & destroying http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/secrets-of-the-vatican/
Im no fan of Psychiatry in general but in the interests of fairness:
from the British Medical Journal
A psychiatrist who was accused in the tabloid press of wrongly diagnosing mental illness in mothers so that social services could take their babies away has been cleared of all charges by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.
George Hibbert, dubbed “the doctor who broke up families” in a front page story by the Daily Mail, ran Tadpole Cottage, a private centre in Wiltshire where mothers were sent with their babies for assessment of their parenting abilities.
In a case that echoed that of the child protection paediatrician David Southall, the newspaper took up the cases of mothers whose babies had been taken into care through the courts on Hibbert’s recommendation. The Daily Telegraph also ran similar stories.
The case took five and a half years to reach a hearing, at which the tribunal service panel found all the factual allegations unproved, meaning that there was no need to go on to consider whether the psychiatrist’s practice was impaired.
The panel noted that the expert witness for the General Medical Council, Margaret Oates, had confirmed under questioning by Hibbert’s counsel, Martin Spencer QC, that the criticisms she had made of his conduct “were matters which could have been dealt with locally, between professional colleagues, and need not have been brought before the [Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service].”
Oates admitted to the panel that she was not an expert on “the dual role of a doctor who had a duty as a psychiatrist to his patient but who also had an overriding duty to the family court, having been instructed to provide an expert opinion,” said panel chairwoman Carrie Ryan-Palmer.
The hearing concerned the case of Miss A, who sold her story to the Daily Mail through the website http://www.cash4yourstory.co.uk. She had “a long and complex history of mental illness, familial difficulties, alcohol abuse and personal problems,” said Ryan-Palmer.
The consensus of psychiatrists was that Miss A had unstable personality disorder, borderline type. Hibbert gave her a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder.
Her four previous children were taken into care, and the family court ordered that she go to Tadpole Cottage in 2007 with her fifth baby to assess whether she was fit to care for him. At the centre she displayed disruptive and threatening behaviour, threatening to “smash the place up” if she was made to stay.
Hibbert recommended that the assessment be terminated, and Miss A left with her solicitor, leaving the baby behind. The next day she was admitted to St George’s Hospital claiming to be suicidal, although she later admitted that she was not.
The tribunal cleared Hibbert of telling a nurse at St George’s that Miss A had left of her own accord when he knew this to be untrue and of submitting a final report to the court that did not provide an accurate account of Miss A’s discharge from Tadpole Cottage. He was also cleared of failing to provide a care plan in advance of her discharge, and the panel accepted that he had no duty to provide one. Two other charges were dropped by the GMC.
The baby was put into foster care. He was later returned to her after another assessment elsewhere but was subsequently taken into care permanently. Miss A’s treating psychiatrist before her admission to Tadpole Cottage, who had encouraged her to complain to the GMC, gave evidence, but the panel “did not find her to be an impressive witness.”
Hibbert, 61, has retired from clinical work and had offered to give up his registration voluntarily. He said that his case showed why doctors were reluctant to undertake child protection work. “It’s a high price to pay for protecting other people’s children,” he said.
Hi Bob, yes, we are aware of the details and they have been discussed at large on this site and elsewhere. Having been in contact with Miss A for several years and knowing what we know about her case, which is significantly more than that which the media has been privy to, we have no doubt that Dr Hibbert’s conduct and indeed his practice was unethical, and not based in sound scientific practice. That is at the heart of this case, for us at least, and the conflicting diagnoses should also be cause for concern to our mind. We have to take a scientific approach in family cases, rather than rely on hearings which only set aside allegations, through lack of evidence, rather than disproves them with it. It’s a subtle distinction, but one which we think is important.
I hate to sound cynical but I see this as just another case of “covering their asses!”
Reading between the lines I read,
We cannot admit to all the kids being taken wrongly by Hibbert.
We, as a professional body, are all under suspicion if we admit Hibbert took the kids wrongly.
This would open the floodgates for compensation.
We have hedged for almost 6 years and we had better deal with it now whilst so many other inquiries are going on. It will be just another for the public to read and turn the page.
Hibbert retires and that will be the end of it! He’s got his pension and his reputation, whilst sullied, isn’t blackened entirely. Getting him off the hook is a small price to pay!
It’s getting so I don’t trust any of these professionals because it comes out later that they do, in fact, cover each others backs. It would be refreshing to hear the truth now and again but I don’t think the truth is allowed to come out when deciding about one of their own!
Pingback: Luna – psychassessmentblog