Sometimes I don't understand
Jul. 18th, 2006 11:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerI read this article about a person who took naked pictures of her children while camping, was suspected of Child Pornography, and then not charged.
And although the investigation seems to have been carried out somewhat brusquely, I really can't see what she's complaining about. They asked the kids if anything inappropriate had occurred. They asked teachers/friends about the children and the parents. They looked at the photos. They decided there was no case to answer. No charges were brought.
Maybe I'm a raving fascist, but if these are exactly the steps I'd _want_ followed in cases of suspected child abuse. Ask the children. Ask other potential witnesses. Look at the available evidence. What else can you do? How would you ever catch an actual abuser if you didn't do this?
I do agree that the initial suspicion was on very slight grounds, but they don't seem to have been treated at all badly. And yet the article is written in the style of someone whose been suibjected to terrible abuse.
Sometimes I just don't understand.
And although the investigation seems to have been carried out somewhat brusquely, I really can't see what she's complaining about. They asked the kids if anything inappropriate had occurred. They asked teachers/friends about the children and the parents. They looked at the photos. They decided there was no case to answer. No charges were brought.
Maybe I'm a raving fascist, but if these are exactly the steps I'd _want_ followed in cases of suspected child abuse. Ask the children. Ask other potential witnesses. Look at the available evidence. What else can you do? How would you ever catch an actual abuser if you didn't do this?
I do agree that the initial suspicion was on very slight grounds, but they don't seem to have been treated at all badly. And yet the article is written in the style of someone whose been suibjected to terrible abuse.
Sometimes I just don't understand.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 06:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 07:05 am (UTC)On the other hand, having worked in a photography studio, I remember getting in MAJOR trouble because in one of the photos from a shoot I did, the kid had squirmed around in her very adoreable dress and when I printed the photo you could see a bit of diaper under the skirt. My manager went BALLISTIC. So I can see where the poor Eckard's kid might have freaked out. But I still think that the cops should have been able to use their discretion, rather than go around interviewing everyone these people knew, which will now taint the rest of their relationship with their children for the rest of time. :(
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 05:03 pm (UTC)One of my mother's proudest pictures of me as a child shows a fair bit of nappy (much to my embarrassment as a teenager). Still, that was 25 years ago: I suspect things have changed quite a bit.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 07:08 am (UTC)A girl I knew had this happen to her once. Her toddler threw a temper tantrum in a car park - you know what kids are like - and someone reported her for *throwing* her kid onto the ground! She spent a year in and out of courts, just because some random passerby decided to play hero instead of taking the time to look closer and see what was really going on. She was eventually found to be in the right, but seriously, thats a lot of stress for a young mum to be put through.
The other reason is that I don't like this country's social services (the SS, the Gestapo). They have the right to remove children from their parents care if they *suspect* anything - they don't have to prove it. Once a kid is gone, they're not allowed back to their parents even if the parents are later found to be innocent. They are extremely arrogant dictators who think they know everything, yet they do not employ anyone who has ever had a *history* - who has been abused in the past, so I don't think they actually have any idea what its like. They're only happy when you say what they want to hear. People just nod and say yes to them because to disagree would land you in seven levels of shit.
I do agree that there has to be protection for kids. I just don't think the current system is any good.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 09:57 am (UTC)While I'm sure there are still problems, I think you're being unfair on the modern social services.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 04:47 pm (UTC)Seriously, it is the ONLY crime in the UK where you have to prove your innocence, rather than them trying to prove your guilt. Whats with that? Why is that okay just because 'its for the children!' ?
And how are people supposed to defend themselves when all proceedings are done behind closed doors and they are told that to seek outside help will breach confidentiality?
People are provided with a social services recommended solicitor. And they use their own 'approved' doctors. Like, zomg! Bias much? I'd like to know what procedures are in place there!
And how come people are being sent to jail on no more than a 'my word against his' basis, only later to be found innocent?
Why are children put up for adoption without their biological parents knowledge?
Want a meaningless statistic? Over 85% of child abuse cases are subsequently found to be not child abuse cases at all and over 450 000 kids are dragged through a humiliating, degrading, distressing and emotionally painful process unnecessarily because of it.
Clearly, I think we would be doing wrong NOT to beathe down the SS's necks a bit and get them to buck their ideas up.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 05:54 pm (UTC)it is the ONLY crime in the UK where you have to prove your innocence, rather than them trying to prove your guilt. Whats with that? Why is that okay just because 'its for the children!' ?
Child abuse (proven) is a crime, yes, but that's not what social services are for; that's police business. Completel;y differnet bodies. Yes, they (social workers) can take children , temporarily, into care on suspicion - I think you'd agree that in some cases that's only to be desired. Within 7 days the child then has to go before a children's panel - composed of lay people like you and me, not social workers, and assisted by a lawyer. The criterion for waht happens IS the welfare of the child, not the wlefare of the parents, yes. That's what the law says, and has since about 1948, and what the UN Convention on the Rts of the Child demands. Proving someone (parents, strangers, whoever) has committed a crime is a wholly seperate issue; it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The two processes are seperate. Social workers may be witnesses in criminal proceedings, but they are not prosecutors, nor are they criminal judges.
In fact, contrary to the picture you paint, if anything we probably under protect children now, at least in SCotland (I am less sure of the English position). Since the 80s there was such a backlash, that the number of children taken into care via emergency protection has dropped every year since. My mother used to do expert witnessing (as a child psychologist, not a social worker) in adoption and care cases, and used to complain constantly about children at risk being left with families, because that has been the dogma since the early 80s - remove from family only as last resort (and this is in the law - see s 22 CSA 1995).
I don't know where you get the "Why are children put up for adoption without their biological parents knowledge?". This is against the law. Basically a child can only be adopted if (a) the parent(s) consent (b) their consent is dispensed with because they cannot care for the child adequately, according to a court, not social workers, or (c) they are dead or cannot be found. You cannot adopt a child without a parent's knowledge if that parent is known to social services. (The exception here is the unmarried father: he still has to be notified but does not have a veto on the adoption. And that is mostly history as of May 2006 anyway, when rights were given to fathers who are registerd on the birth certificate even if not married to the mother. Note also that overwhelmingly children put up for adoption have in practice one parent, their mother.)
In fact most children adopted these days are not babies but older children who have spent long periods in care, and have a very very long history with social services; adoption takes so long in these cases, it is extremely unlikely a parent would reamin unknown if they cared a damn about the child.
Being a family social worker is basically the shit job of all time. You are damned for taking children out of families; damned if you don't and they end up hurt, abused or dead. Social workers are regularly threatened with legal action for trying to do their jobs. It is underpaid, long hours and poor prospects. because of this most social work authorities are deeply understaffed. Try talking to actual social workers; I don't think they feel much like the SS. Most of them are looking for other jobs.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 07:22 pm (UTC)In some cases, yes. But not all. I'm concerned with the cases where kids are taken into care under the flimsiest of suspicions. The SS have a very heavy handed way about them at times. Thats what I'm talking about when I say 'innocent until proven guilty'. Kids being taken for a single bump on the head, for example, like that case in Essex.
As to the adoption thing - a parent may know that their child is up for adoption but they are not necessarily told when their child has *been* adopted.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 07:33 pm (UTC)Emergency care in both England and Scotland requires proof or suspicion of "significant harm".
As for adoption, I don't quite get you : do you mean that birth parents don't have a right to find a child once adopted and over 16? I agree things could be better in that respect, but I do think the person who still needs most protection is the child and it should be their choice.
If you mean that parents can't stop a child being adopted after a "freeing for adoption" order: well that's the whole point of it! (These are made so children don't get settled in potential sdoption placements then yanked out by parents changing their mind at the last minute.)
But if you mean exactly what you say: that just isn't how it is. Adoption takes a court order, and though proceedings are in private, the making of that order is public knowledge. Birth parents who can be found are notified of the process, have the right to oppose and the right to be involved even if not opposing (even fathers with no rights).
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 09:25 pm (UTC)I say it how it is. Here's the situation - your kid gets put up for adoption. You start proceedings to challenge that order, but before your challenge is answered, the kid is adopted and you have no further recourse. There's something wrong with that.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 05:54 pm (UTC)No, I think some of the issues related to prostitution (which is not in and of itself a crime) work that way, but it's been a while since I researched them, so that could have changed, but I doubt it.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 06:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 06:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 05:07 pm (UTC)In saying that, I have known families where children have been removed for spurious reasons and also families where children weren't removed despite a hellish home life.
It's often cited as a resourcing issue, but that doesn't diminish the effect on the families involved.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 07:50 am (UTC)Ideally such investigations would be done completely anonymously, but let's not pretend that people don't find out about such things, and that rumours don't start flying around. People have been lynched over less.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 09:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 10:02 am (UTC)Brusque ?
Date: 2006-07-19 08:20 am (UTC)It says The officer told me that he personally did not find [the photos] offensive and that he had camped himself as a kid and knows what goes on." But the officer also told Janet that "because Eckerd's had called them and that because there were pictures of children naked, genitalia and alcohol, they would have to investigate"
I mean do people not want these things investigated?
As soon as anything happens involving kids people are up in arms about the Police and their failure to investigate. You really cannot have it both ways.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 09:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 05:12 pm (UTC)It may be a naive view, but I honestly don't see a problem with people having naked pictures of their own kids. In saying that, I probably wouldn't do it (I don't have kids), because I am aware of the problems it can cause.
Arguments about pornography and paedophilia have distorted the view of nudity, particularly among the young, which I think is a shame. I honestly believe that in some circumstances adults inpositions of responsibility are forced to spend more time thinking about how things look than how there are.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 03:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 05:26 pm (UTC)I think that most of the main players in this are blameless, it's the person who alerted the police to the case in the first place that caused all the trouble.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 05:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 05:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 06:25 pm (UTC)Imagine a case of this kind where the child later WAS found to have been abused and the police had done zero after a complaint. can you imagine the press?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 05:18 pm (UTC)I can understand the family frustration here. Speaking to the children is one thing, but teachers, neighbours and employers is another. A reputation is easily besmirched and I can see how it could be tremendously difficult to face the community after such an investigation. Some - for want of a better word - conservative families might disapprove of the activities regardless.
That's not to say the authorities acted inappropriately in terms of their behaviour towards the family themselves - they were doing their job - but rather that the investigation needn't have gone to the depth it did.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 05:35 pm (UTC)Setting the priorities otherwise would be tricky, but understanding that taking kids away from their families is obviously necessary.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 07:25 pm (UTC)It would be highly entertaining to see the photo lab clerk's face when you explain that one.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-19 09:27 pm (UTC)