30 years after the Butler-Sloss Cleveland Inquiry into the traumatic conclusion of well over 100 children being taken wrongly taken into care, what are the outcomes of todays child protection field? …

[Alison J Stevens]

30 years after the Butler-Sloss Cleveland Inquiry into the traumatic conclusion of well over 100 children being taken wrongly taken into care, what are the outcomes of todays child protection field?

All children had been removed from the care of their  parents , and placed into LA care, via the conflicting medical evidence given by Dr Marietta Higgs and her colleague Dr Geoffrey Wyatt within the family court arena.

Higgs theory was based on the reflex anal dilation diagnostic procedure..

RAD is the reflective dilation of the human anus to a diameter greater than 2 centimetres 'in response to the parting of the buttocks or anal stimulation , such as brushing with a medical instrument..

This theory was to be a clinical marker to diagnose sexual assaults and the sexual abuse in children..

In 1986 Marietta Higgs attended a conference and learned  about RAD,in connection with sexual assault.

The theory of RAD  alone is not considered to be indicative of sexual abuse..

121 children were taken wrongly  into LA care by Higgs evidence given within the family court arena, they were taken by social workers and the police on the old place of safety order..

Dr Higgs and Dr Wyatt evidence was later discredited, and well over 90 children were returned to their parents.

The children did not just have the trauma of being removed from their parents and placed into foster care, but also they were forced to undergo intimate medical examinations.

The secretary of state for social services at the time ordered a statutory inquiry into arrangements for dealing with suspected cases of child sexual abuse in Cleveland, children were removed from their parents in the early hours of the morning .

In a way it would also be a learning kerb to prevent similar things happening again.

Sue Amphlett Director of Parents Against Injustice at the time also added evidence to this inquiry.

And today we hear of a child of 5 years of age taken into care wrongly by Social Services in the Liverpool area..

Social workers made the decision at a meeting held behind closed doors , then deliberately deceived the boys family by not telling them for well over two weeks just giving them two days notice.

There would have been a child protection case conference with other agencies taking part , to decide the fate of the child.

Back in the early 1990s parents were not allowed to attend these kind of meetings..

PAIN with regards to their campaigning within parliament at the time , won the right for parents to attend child protection case conferences via MPs and their private members bills, it was called, Parents allowed in at child protection case conference bill.

I remember way back in 1986,i was told by my older child's teacher told me that she was going to a meeting the next day to discus child protection issues regarding my 3 year old son who had fractured his left tibia after jumping from the bath and landing awkwardly.

Yes we had been accused of breaking my sons leg.

I rang the Social worker and asked him why we had not been invited to the meeting, his reply was this never ever happens.

I told him that i was not happy, that they were all behind a closed door discussing my children and myself behind our backs.

I created such a fuss that the powers to be had no alternative but to have us there at the meeting.

it looks like the LA and other agencies did not invite the parents to the child protection case conference.in the highlighted case.

The LA now have a mandatory obligation to invite Gillick children to such meetings  and the child should receive a letter in the post no later than 48 hours notifying them about the meeting and encourage them to be there with an advocate.

Things have gone so badly wrong in this case, and echoes the dark days of the early 1990s when parents were not allowed in to such meetings.

With no idea what had been decided the parents had no time to seek legal representation.

When an emergency protection order is mentioned parents can apply for public funding legal aid, in this case this did not happen.

Parents do have the right to try and get the EPO discharged within 72 hours, but social workers do not let persons know about this.

Legal aid can be applied for at the time a parent receives a letter notifying them of a pre proceeding's meeting.

On notification of this letter parents need to take this letter to a children's panel solicitor..

In this case it basically looks like social services ignored all such policies..

The Judge is his summing up Judge Malcolm Sharpe blasted the councils failure to take into account the importance of family ties and family life to a young child and had grossly ignored a child friendly policy and failing to apply the law properly.

Yes 30 plus years after the Cleveland inquiry things are still happening like the former within the family courts where the medical evidence is taken as gospel and parents and children's lives are ruined forever.

My heart goes out to the parents in this case, as well as the poor parents.

When things like this happen, i feel that my 35 years as a PAIN ADVOCATE AS ALL BEEN IN VAIN.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/little-boy-take...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804230/

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/CLEVELAND%3A+A+LEGACY+OF+HATE+AND+FE...

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/108933/1/WRAP-emergence-campaigning-paren...

Case conference notes (1) from Alison Stevens