A mother whose baby was removed from her shortly after giving birth, and eventually managed to get him back, will be speaking to journalist Victoria Derbyshire tomorrow about her ordeal.
The interview will be looking at a concept called ‘risk of future harm’, also sometimes described as ‘a child being likely to suffer significant harm’, which is a test or threshold used by social services to remove children from parents who they feel may not be able to parent adequately or who pose a threat to their child in some way.
Although there is currently no set definition for what future harm is exactly, S.31 of the Children Act 1989 sets out the legal basis or the ‘threshold criteria’ on which a Family Court can make a Care or Supervision Order in respect of a particular child and includes the sentiment that a child must be “suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm”. ‘Significant Harm’ is described in The Children Act 1989 as “ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development”. (For a more detailed explanation, please see our post on the topic).
Victoria’s programmes are on air every weekday between 0900 & 1100. You can catch this interview online, on BBC Two, the BBC News Channel and on Victoria’s Facebook page.
hollie greig justice said:
Reblogged this on HOLLIE GREIG HOAX? THIS IS OUR BACK UP SITE FOR http://holliegreigjustice.blogspot.co.uk/.
LikeLike
Calvin [edited] said:
My daughter’s baby was taken at birth because, ‘Possibly, in the future, she MAY get post natal depression. S H O U LD she get PND, then that opens a LIKELYHOOD of POSSIBLE NEGLECT in the future. the ‘Baby’ is almost nine years old, my daughter gets to see him for one hour, per month, supervised by SociaL Workers. She never did get PND, but you should hear her crying on Mothers’ Day, Christmas and his birthday. HEARTBREAKING.
My Grandson now lives in a children’s home. They wouldn’t let our family raise him because ‘He may be at risk of significant harm.’
My brother, a policeman, his wife a nurse.
My two nieces are registered childminders
My other niece a teacher.
My daughter in law, a Nursery teacher/ manager.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Natasha said:
I’m so sorry, Calvin. Thank you for posting.
LikeLike
kelvinlawrencelord said:
HOPE U DONT MIND ME PUBLISHING THIS ?
LikeLike
Natasha said:
You’re very welcome to publish the post – if you mean the comment by the poster, best to ask their permission x
LikeLike
chief roganoff said:
Did you ever harm your daughter?
LikeLike
Forced Adoption said:
This practice distinguishes the UK from all other countries ! As far as I know the UK is the ONLY country in the world where babies can be ,and frequently are removed at birth for mere RISK of future emotional harm.
A disgraceful crime against humanity than can never be justified………..
LikeLike
Sabine Kurjo McNeill said:
Reblogged this on No Punishment without Crime or Bereavement without Death!.
LikeLike
Dana said:
The irony is children taken into care on the risk of future harm are most certainly harmed by taking them into care. Where is the logic in that?
LikeLike
maggie tuttle said:
I don’t think there is one perfect parent on this planet but it does not mean that the parents do not love the child/ren, but many people are aware of how the English language has always been turned to suit a situation, and for the multibillion pound kids industry what better then emotional or future emotional abuse, this is as in most cases of stealing kids for profit on HEAR SAY, and that is exactly what the FAMILY COURTS ARE HEAR SAY ONLY,
So where is the justice when a social worker cannot speak English correctly sends a kid into the unknown without a court order was not registered as a S/W then stood in the box and on oath when being questioned said (Sorry I no understand English) she was dismissed from the case as a main witness.
We have new borne babies taken at birth, with many who as adults were abused in care, and there are no doors for any kid from care to open and say I am a victim, as we can read of the millions or is it running into billions of pounds for the debates in Governments to say as recently Macabe said to 700 ABUSED victims NO CASE, and Mcabe spoke for all Governments and victims NO CASE, all on hear say and that is exactly what happens in family courts, because one only has to think that if all of the thousands of families where guilty of child abuse bloody hell the prisons should be full, or better still lets start with Cameron did he leave his kid in the Pub on hear say.
The children will always be screaming to be heard.
LikeLike
truthaholics said:
Reblogged this on | truthaholics.
LikeLike
Calvin [edited] said:
No probs at all.
Publish and let them jail me
I could use the publicity
LikeLike
maggie tuttle said:
Hi Calvin, if you can try to make the conference on Saturday we have top guest speakers and hope for some families to learn what a corrupt system we live in
http://www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com/children-screaming-heard-conference/
there will be many from the media to report and also speaking is Sue Reid journalist from the Mail and she has written for so many years of the child abuse in care.
Maggie
LikeLike
Calvin (edited) said:
Hi, I’m afraid I can’t make the meeting although would love to be there.
Sue Reid is familiar with our case as she once spoke about it at Westminster after I wrote an article for the Western Mail that was also published in the Daily Mail.
LikeLike
bankanglesensor said:
Reblogged this on BertieS.
LikeLike
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Mr. Militant Negro said:
Reblogged this on The Militant Negro™.
LikeLike
Pingback: Dwyane Wade’s Custody Dispute a Classic Case of Parental Alienation | Children's Rights
chief roganoff said:
This is so sad I’m glad that she got it back though!
LikeLike