Skip to main content

The interests of the child are paramount

The link is to a story from Australia where the Child Protection team got upset that a foster carer took a child to the doctor without their permission.

Generally it is accepted that the interests of the child are "paramount". What that means is that the child comes first.

The big question is what that means in practise. The various professionals argue the case that they are acting in the interests of the child and hence it means that people should do what they say.

What the evidence is quite clear about is that they have conflicts of interests in certain circumstances. Departmental and personal interests reign supreme in comparison to the children concerned.

The evidence in terms of "looked after" children (the new term for children in care) - sometimes converted to the acronym LACs - is that being "cared for" by the system on average damages life chances.

That is not to criticise individuals generally within the process. It is the system that is dehumanising and results in situations like that in Australia. The absence of scrutiny makes the institutional interest stronger. It is important to remember that when people argue for the continuation of secrecy in public family law that this is not to protect the children. Children who are "released" for adoption are advertised publicly on websites. The secrecy of the family courts acts primarily to protect the professionals involved from scrutiny.

Comments

John Hemming said…
I am not quite sure what the rules are in the UK.
John Hemming said…
I am aware that mothers have on a number of occasions been attended by ambulances as a result of what is done at the Silvermere Centre. I am also aware that children are put on the child protection register in Birmingham unlawfully.

If you know of any of my constituents (or even ex-constituents) who wishes me to look at issues on their behalf please do encourage them to contact me. If I am appointed as a lay advisor then I can be provided with all the information about the case.
nobody said…
http://social-services-disrupt-family-life.blogspot.com/

Popular posts from this blog

Its the long genes that stop working

People who read my blog will be aware that I have for some time argued that most (if not all) diseases of aging are caused by cells not being able to produce enough of the right proteins. What happens is that certain genes stop functioning because of a metabolic imbalance. I was, however, mystified as to why it was always particular genes that stopped working. Recently, however, there have been three papers produced: Aging is associated with a systemic length-associated transcriptome imbalance Age- or lifestyle-induced accumulation of genotoxicity is associated with a generalized shutdown of long gene transcription and Gene Size Matters: An Analysis of Gene Length in the Human Genome From these it is obvious to see that the genes that stop working are the longer ones. To me it is therefore obvious that if there is a shortage of nuclear Acetyl-CoA then it would mean that the probability of longer Genes being transcribed would be reduced to a greater extent than shorter ones.