The baby snatchers: Judge
orders social workers to hand back newborn child taken from hospital at 4 am
By David Wilkes
|
|
A
newborn baby was illegally snatched from its mother by social workers in the early
hours of yesterday morning.
Officials
claimed the 18-year-old mother was unfit to care for the child because of
mental health problems.
But
hours later a High Court judge ordered the infant to be returned immediately,
saying the social workers had acted beyond their powers.
Mr
Justice Munby told the officials that they "should have known
better".
The troubling
case follows complaints from parents that social workers have taken their
children for adoption without good reason, and suggestions that families are
being broken up to meet bureaucratic targets.
Last
night campaigners welcomed the ruling and praised the mother's lawyers for
their prompt action to reunite the baby with its mother.
The
child, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was born healthy at 2am
yesterday.
Later
Ian Wise, appearing for the mother, referred to as "G", told the High
Court in London that the child was taken from her at about 4am without her
consent.
The
child was removed after staff at the hospital were shown a "birth
plan" prepared by local authority social services.
The
plan said the mother, who had a troubled childhood and suffers from mental
health problems, was to be separated from the child, and no contact allowed
without supervision by social workers.
In
his ruling, the judge ordered that the local social services authority and NHS
trust "take the necessary steps to reunite mother and baby
forthwith".
The
mother now faces a legal battle to remain with her child. Mr Wise said she
intends to fight to keep her baby. The judge described the situation as
"most unfortunate". He said no baby can be removed simply "as
the result of a decision taken by officials in some room".
Removal
can be lawful only if a police officer is taking action to protect the child,
or there is a court order in place.
The
judge said doctors and midwives at the hospital could not have been expected to
understand this and acted as they did when faced with "a bit of
paper" with the birth plan.
He
said: "On the face of it, what was done was without lawful authority. The
professionals involved in this case should know better.
"You
cannot remove children, short of immediate murderous intent (situations where a
child is in immediate danger), except by lawful means, which means either by a
police officer or court.
The
judge added: "There is no suggestion in the documents shown to me so far
that the mother is posing a risk of exposing the child to immediate physical
attack and physical harm."
The
ruling was made shortly after midday, and mother and baby were reunited 46
minutes later.
Last
night the mother's solicitor Stuart Luke, from the firm Bhatia Best, said she
faces the prospect of an application by social services for an interim care
order, which he said would be vigorously contested. It is likely to be heard
this morning before local magistrates.
Adoption
targets were brought in seven years ago, when Tony Blair was trying to persuade
social workers to find adoptive homes for more children.
The then
Prime Minister set targets to raise the number of children being adopted by 50
per cent to 5,400 every year.
He
promised millions of pounds to councils that managed to achieve the targets.
Some have already received more than £2million for successful adoptions.
Campaigners
say the number of babies under a month old being taken into care and then
adopted has risen from 500 in 1997 to 1,300 a year. Last year a BBC
investigation discovered more than 100 claims of miscarriages of justice by
parents whose children were taken by social workers for adoption.
The
Radio Four Face the Facts programme quoted social workers who admitted they are
under pressure to take children because of Whitehall targets to increase
adoption.
Last
night Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who has been campaigning against
inappropriate adoption of babies, said: "Councils are in a big rush to
take babies at a very early stage because it is makes it easier to break the
attachment that naturally forms between baby and mother over time.
"This
case illustrates again how the system is not working in the interests of the
children or the families, it's working in the interests of the bureaucracy.
"What's
unique about this case is not the unlawful removal of a child, but that some lawyers
have sufficient backbone to make the right application to the court to have the
child returned to its mother."
Mr
Hemming added: "There are financial rewards - a fund of about £35million -
for getting children adopted. Admittedly, it has been proposed that adoption
targets are scrapped on April 1, but clearly there are still problems."
Layton
Bevan, co-founder of Families and Social Services Information Team, a support
group for families frustrated by social services' actions, said: "It's
obscene the way some social services can take children away from parents
without the proper paperwork.
"We
are aware of this happening in hundreds of cases a year through the sheer
incompetence and organisational failure of social services departments.
"If
they need to meet adoption targets they will do it by taking children from
vulnerable families.
"Worryingly, the social
services involved seem to have no accountability and ride roughshod over the
law and the parents and children involved."
Back to The baby snatchers
Back to Articles