"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[fabgod]

What I meant was that this was an isolated experience, circumstantial to them being on holiday, in comparison to the article where the neglect was longer standing and there was far more evidence to get a conviction. There is no evidence to suggest that the Mccann children were anything other than happy, healthy children and apart from this occasion (being the 6 nights) were well cared for.

This case is very complex. Personally I think what they did was very irresponsible, professionally I am trained to be objective and empathetic.

There is no exact definition of 'reasonable parenting' (they certainly have never been called responsible). The law considers parenting in the light of whether it is abusive or not but the law is extremely vague. If a claim is made that a child is 'in need' or 'at risk' the local authority has a duty to investigate. It is up to the social worker who is assigned the case to determine whether the evidence they have collected constitutes as significant harm. This requires extremely good judgement.

The Mccanns were interviewed by social services and no charges were brought against them additionally the twins have at no point been deemed as 'in need' or 'at risk'. I think it would be hard to get a conviction against them. I also think that it would not be in the best interests of their twins.

I think genuinely the Mccanns made a very stupid mistake. Because Mark Warner offered a seemingly successful baby listening service they felt a false sense of security in carrying this out themselves. I think this is a huge factor in why charges were never brought against them because it was deemed that under that false sense of security they acted reasonable.

Again highlighting the differences in the cases I think the Mccanns made an error of judgement due to this false sense of security I do not believe it was a deliberate act and there is no evidence to prove that Madeleine wouldn't have been abducted (if you believe that theory) even if the parents were there. In the other case it was deliberate neglect plain and simple, longstanding and beyond selfish.

What do parents have to do to be deemed neglectful? The level of neglect is determined on a case by case basis and by referring to case law. Tricky business.

Just my opinion

Gem 2626
I appreciate your post, points well made thank you

My thoughts are that to allow the McCanns to propogate the thought that
their actions were "well within the bounds of responsible parenting" sends out the wrong signal as far as Parental care goes.
The fact that their behaviour directly or indirectly allowed a child to go missing surely should have been addressed but, as you rightly state it wasnt.

I feel that parental laws should be the same for everyone and defined as in it should never be deemed acceptable to leave children under a certain age alone in a property etc, it shouldnt depend on past histories, it should be judged on whatever action resulted in them being brought to the authorities attention.

Thats just my opinion

 

[BritsKate]

What I meant was that this was an isolated experience, circumstantial to them being on holiday, in comparison to the article where the neglect was longer standing and there was far more evidence to get a conviction. There is no evidence to suggest that the Mccann children were anything other than happy, healthy children and apart from this occasion (being the 6 nights) were well cared for.

This case is very complex. Personally I think what they did was very irresponsible, professionally I am trained to be objective and empathetic.

There is no exact definition of 'reasonable parenting' (they certainly have never been called responsible). The law considers parenting in the light of whether it is abusive or not but the law is extremely vague. If a claim is made that a child is 'in need' or 'at risk' the local authority has a duty to investigate. It is up to the social worker who is assigned the case to determine whether the evidence they have collected constitutes as significant harm. This requires extremely good judgement.

The Mccanns were interviewed by social services and no charges were brought against them additionally the twins have at no point been deemed as 'in need' or 'at risk'. I think it would be hard to get a conviction against them. I also think that it would not be in the best interests of their twins.

I think genuinely the Mccanns made a very stupid mistake. Because Mark Warner offered a seemingly successful baby listening service they felt a false sense of security in carrying this out themselves. I think this is a huge factor in why charges were never brought against them because it was deemed that under that false sense of security they acted reasonable.

Again highlighting the differences in the cases I think the Mccanns made an error of judgement due to this false sense of security I do not believe it was a deliberate act and there is no evidence to prove that Madeleine wouldn't have been abducted (if you believe that theory) even if the parents were there. In the other case it was deliberate neglect plain and simple, longstanding and beyond selfish.

What do parents have to do to be deemed neglectful? The level of neglect is determined on a case by case basis and by referring to case law. Tricky business.

Just my opinion

I think I love you! Thank you for your input. I truly appreciate your explanation on what British law actually states.

 

[Gem2626]

Gem 2626
I appreciate your post, points well made thank you

My thoughts are that to allow the McCanns to propogate the thought that
their actions were "well within the bounds of responsible parenting" sends out the wrong signal as far as Parental care goes.
The fact that their behaviour directly or indirectly allowed a child to go missing surely should have been addressed but, as you rightly state it wasnt.

I feel that parental laws should be the same for everyone and defined as in it should never be deemed acceptable to leave children under a certain age alone in a property etc, it shouldnt depend on past histories, it should be judged on whatever action resulted in them being brought to the authorities attention.

Thats just my opinion

Aaaaargh Fabgod!!! AGAIN... it was never said that their actions were "well within the bounds of RESPONSIBLE parenting" It was said they were "well within the bounds of REASONABLE parenting"

I think everyone can agree that their actions were not particularly responsible however, in the environment and under the circumstances of there being that false sense of security it could be seen as reasonable. That's just my take on things.

Due to the publicity surrounding the case the social worker assigned would have been senior or management level. This would have been dealt with thoroughly with careful consideration. You would expect there to have been a huge backlash as to why they were not charged when really there hasn't. I can only guess that this is because many people sympathise with the Mccanns and feel that they've already paid the ultimate price.

Significant harm caused to a child is more often an accumulation of significant events, both acute and longstanding rather than one event (being the whole holiday in this case) brought to the authorities attention. This is an unusual case and it would be difficult to bring charges because a, there is no previous history of significant harm (they've never even been considered children in need) and b, they cannot prove that madeleine would not still have been abducted if they had been there. Their actions had dire consequences but despite what people may think it's extremely difficult to get a conviction without solid evidence.


Yes there should be a law clearly stating when it is not OK to leave a child. I imagine the reason there isn't one already is that it would be too complicated to define what 'leaving alone' actually entails. It would again be vague and ultimately the decision would end up with the local authority to determine on an individual basis whether the law was broken.

When I studied law at college we had to think of something completely ridiculous and make a law to ban it. Me and my friend chose wearing socks with sandals lol. It was quite fun to do but extremely difficult to write. We had to define what a sock was, what a sandal was, measurements, who it applied to, where it was banned etc etc.

In regards to leaving children it's not as simple as saying e.g 'anyone under the age of 14 should not be left without parental supervision' there is just so much to consider. Head Wreck!!

 

[Gem2626]

I think I love you! Thank you for your input. I truly appreciate your explanation on what British law actually states.

Lol i'm glad it makes sense! Usually it does in my head but when I write it down it looks like gobbledygook

 

[fabgod]

Aaaaargh Fabgod!!! AGAIN... it was never said that their actions were "well within the bounds of RESPONSIBLE parenting" It was said they were "well within the bounds of REASONABLE parenting"

BBM and snipped by me

Gem2626
Has it not?

From Gerry McCanns blog 22/07/2007

From Gerry McCann's blog - Day 80 - 22/07/2007 - Sunday
Quote:

We have been advised that legally our behaviour was well within the bounds of responsible parenting and subsequently been assured that no action will be taken.

Not my words Gem2626, Gerry McCanns words

 

[fabgod]

Gem 2626
With regard to the rest of the post, personally I would say that there was abacklash, granted not a massive backlash at the time, but I think that a major part of the reason for that was that at the time "the search" was on to find Madeleine and the the whole Murat and the McCann arguido stories started to break which in my opinion, sidetracked the neglect issue.

I also wonder if the fact that the chose to stay in Portugal for that period also negated any investigation into their care.

I do find it disconcerting that as a Social Worker, you are in a way, saying that there has to be previous evidence of abuse, neglect or harm for example, before Social Services would get involved, but if that is the way it works, who am I to argue?

 

[BritsKate]

I totally believe (unfortunately) charges would have been difficult to pursue for a myriad of reasons. That isn't the same as claiming their actions were legal though. Simply put their actions were deemed to not be chargeable for, probably, a myriad of reasons.

I do think a greater definition of neglect is warranted including legislation designed to define and prosecute emotional neglect which is very often overlooked on both sides of the pond.

NSPCC recommendations state to never leave a baby or toddler unattended (even while sleeping) for any length of time. Great. Then let's make that the law. At the moment the laws on the books are just too broad and open to interpretation.

(Further I do think that if your child goes missing, or dies, and you could have taken foreseeable preventative caution you should automatically be charged with neglect. Things like locked doors and unattended toddlers are preventable in my opinion.)

 

[Gem2626]

Aaaaargh Fabgod!!! AGAIN... it was never said that their actions were "well within the bounds of RESPONSIBLE parenting" It was said they were "well within the bounds of REASONABLE parenting"

BBM and snipped by me

Gem2626
Has it not?

From Gerry McCanns blog 22/07/2007

From Gerry McCann's blog - Day 80 - 22/07/2007 - Sunday
Quote:

We have been advised that legally our behaviour was well within the bounds of responsible parenting and subsequently been assured that no action will be taken.

Not my words Gem2626, Gerry McCanns words

Oh my god you're right! Apologies.

There are lots of different reports saying either responsible or reasonable. In one newspaper article they used both terms on separate occassions. Their spokesman has also been quoted as saying 'reasonable'. How frustrating!

Now I have issues with any social worker saying that their parenting was responsible. Let me explain...

Within law there is no such thing as 'responsible parenting' only parental responsibility in terms of the duties you have to your child to feed them, protect them etc. (children act 1989 s.2/3) The local authority also has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children (children act 1989 s.17)

The local authority has a duty to investigate if there is REASONABLE cause to suspect that a child or young person is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm (Children act 1989 s.47)

Basically as parents you have a duty, the local authority has a duty. When something goes wrong decisions are made and whether you carried out your duties (parental responsibility)as a parent reasonably.

This is why I think the reports saying they were in the bounds or reasonable parenting and not responsible parenting are probably accurate because from a legal stance it doesn't make sense! Is it possible the Mccanns got confused with the 2 words beginning with R? or have they upgraded themselves?

I hope this makes sense i'm on holiday this week and my brain is half switched off. I should have provided links also...

 

[BritsKate]

I said it much earlier on in this thread but I really believe if the McCann's had ever done anything other than justify their irresponsibility it would have gone a long way in changing public sentiment. For me at least.

I think a prime opportunity for an appeal highlighting the dangers of leaving a toddler out of hearing/sight range was missed. MOO

 

[Gem2626]

Gem 2626
With regard to the rest of the post, personally I would say that there was abacklash, granted not a massive backlash at the time, but I think that a major part of the reason for that was that at the time "the search" was on to find Madeleine and the the whole Murat and the McCann arguido stories started to break which in my opinion, sidetracked the neglect issue.

I also wonder if the fact that the chose to stay in Portugal for that period also negated any investigation into their care.

I do find it disconcerting that as a Social Worker, you are in a way, saying that there has to be previous evidence of abuse, neglect or harm for example, before Social Services would get involved, but if that is the way it works, who am I to argue?

Can't articulate what I want to say right now so will reply later

 

[Gem2626]

Gem 2626
With regard to the rest of the post, personally I would say that there was abacklash, granted not a massive backlash at the time, but I think that a major part of the reason for that was that at the time "the search" was on to find Madeleine and the the whole Murat and the McCann arguido stories started to break which in my opinion, sidetracked the neglect issue.

I also wonder if the fact that the chose to stay in Portugal for that period also negated any investigation into their care.

I do find it disconcerting that as a Social Worker, you are in a way, saying that there has to be previous evidence of abuse, neglect or harm for example, before Social Services would get involved, but if that is the way it works, who am I to argue?

Ok this might sound long winded and repetitive but here goes....

Social services will get involved when it comes to our attention that a family requires assistance to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of care (child in need) or when there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is or is likely to suffer significant harm (child at risk).

The best place for a child to be is with their family however, the welfare of a child is paramount.

We have a duty to investigate. This has to be thorough you leave a stone unturned and you're in deep sugar- this could result in a child being returned to an abusive family, a child ending up dead, being wiped of the register or being prosecuted.

When we discharge our duties to a child it has to be with the child's best interests in mind. You do not do this lightly either.

In regards to children at risk there doesn't have to be previous evidence of abuse. It is a factor in any decision making but would never be a sole reason for the decision reached.

When it comes to Madeleine and the twins you are essentially looking at 2 different cases. One in which the child ends up missing and one where the children are alive and well. Their stories interconnect with each other but with Madeleine you are looking at what has happened in the past whereas with the twins although you are looking at the past you predominantly looking at their future.

 

[Gem2626]

I said it much earlier on in this thread but I really believe if the McCann's had ever done anything other than justify their irresponsibility it would have gone a long way in changing public sentiment. For me at least.

I think a prime opportunity for an appeal highlighting the dangers of leaving a toddler out of hearing/sight range was missed. MOO

I think just hearing their name/ seeing their faces is enough of a reminder for everyone to not make the mistakes they made. I also think it's probably best if they just keep quiet.

 

[badhorsie]

I think genuinely the Mccanns made a very stupid mistake. Because Mark Warner offered a seemingly successful baby listening service they felt a false sense of security in carrying this out themselves. I think this is a huge factor in why charges were never brought against them because it was deemed that under that false sense of security they acted reasonable.



Just my opinion

Snipped and BBM. But Mark Warner Ocean Club in PDL DID NOT OFFER a baby listening service at this complex as it was not deemed safe due to the layout. The McCann party KNEW THIS and still decided to manage their own service.

On other forums to do with this case, all the apologists for the McCanns trot out the same arguments, almost verbatim at times. ie;
Their behaviour in leaving their children is "normal"
Eddie (cadaver dog) reacts to body fluids of living people and alerted to a piece of coconut. (he reacted to the ground where it was found, humans found it and decided it looked like a piece of skull)
Various smears are made against Martin Grimes who was a well respected dog handler.

It all sickens me

 

[fabgod]

Ok this might sound long winded and repetitive but here goes....

Social services will get involved when it comes to our attention that a family requires assistance to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of care (child in need) or when there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is or is likely to suffer significant harm (child at risk).

The best place for a child to be is with their family however, the welfare of a child is paramount.

We have a duty to investigate. This has to be thorough you leave a stone unturned and you're in deep sugar- this could result in a child being returned to an abusive family, a child ending up dead, being wiped of the register or being prosecuted.

When we discharge our duties to a child it has to be with the child's best interests in mind. You do not do this lightly either.

In regards to children at risk there doesn't have to be previous evidence of abuse. It is a factor in any decision making but would never be a sole reason for the decision reached.

When it comes to Madeleine and the twins you are essentially looking at 2 different cases. One in which the child ends up missing and one where the children are alive and well. Their stories interconnect with each other but with Madeleine you are looking at what has happened in the past whereas with the twins although you are looking at the past you predominantly looking at their future.

And obviously as there were no charges made against the parents, then it has to be viewed that Madeleine was taken by someone else, which means that they would in the eyes of the law, be better off with the parents.
It makes sense.

Using your experience if I may, how would making Madeleine a ward of court after she went missing affect Social services?

 

[fabgod]

I think just hearing their name/ seeing their faces is enough of a reminder for everyone to not make the mistakes they made. I also think it's probably best if they just keep quiet.

Agreed, but it seems to me, the image that they portray is that they did very little if anything wrong and that they were told by legal advisors, that they had done nothing wrong.
To then accept a position as an Ambassador for missing children, pretty much rubs everybodys faces in it as far as I can see, it just presents the wrong image for me

 

[fabgod]

On other forums to do with this case, all the apologists for the McCanns trot out the same arguments, almost verbatim at times. ie;
Their behaviour in leaving their children is "normal"
Eddie (cadaver dog) reacts to body fluids of living people and alerted to a piece of coconut. (he reacted to the ground where it was found, humans found it and decided it looked like a piece of skull)
Various smears are made against Martin Grimes who was a well respected dog handler.
It all sickens me[/QUOTE]

bbm sbm,

Couldn't agree more, desperate moves by desperate people!
Fact is the dogs dont get it wrong, humans do!
Haute de la Garenne is the biggest can of worms out there, one day hopefully it will all come to light, but I'm not holding my breath

 

[brit1981]

On other forums to do with this case, all the apologists for the McCanns trot out the same arguments, almost verbatim at times. ie;
Their behaviour in leaving their children is "normal"
Eddie (cadaver dog) reacts to body fluids of living people and alerted to a piece of coconut. (he reacted to the ground where it was found, humans found it and decided it looked like a piece of skull)
Various smears are made against Martin Grimes who was a well respected dog handler.
It all sickens me

bbm sbm,

Couldn't agree more, desperate moves by desperate people!
Fact is the dogs dont get it wrong, humans do!
Haute de la Garenne is the biggest can of worms out there, one day hopefully it will all come to light, but I'm not holding my breath

First of all, there were no bodies found in the jersey case and the dogs alerted, so like you say people can get their interpreations of the alerts incorrect.

This is what Grimes says about Eddie in his report to the PJ in regards to the mccann case "'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain." (the link is http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm)

So one can see that a) eddie is not a cadaver dog, but an enhanced victim reocery dog and b) he does alert to bodily fluids. This is Grimes's, his handler, belief and I see no reason to challenge him and claim Grimes is wrong and that his dog is actually a cadaver dog and does not alert to bodily fluids. this was what caused the problem in jersey, people like the media, hyped up the dogs so that when it turned out his alerts did not mean a body was there it was damaging. Yet in fact Grimes stated his dog would alert to bodily fluids, so it is not his fault if people incorrectly claimed the alerts meant there had to be a body there. It is those claiming that Eddie only alerts to cadavers who have in effect smeared Grimes by claiming the dogs only alert to cadavers.

And yes, being fifty metres away from sleeping children is not unusual hence the nanny listening services are perfectly legal and still in widespread use thorughout the EU.

 

[Gem2626]

And obviously as there were no charges made against the parents, then it has to be viewed that Madeleine was taken by someone else, which means that they would in the eyes of the law, be better off with the parents.
It makes sense.

Using your experience if I may, how would making Madeleine a ward of court after she went missing affect Social services?

I have never had a case where the child has been or been made a ward of court. Wardship is extremely rare. Obtaining wardship isn't really necessary as the courts already have the power to make decisions regarding children so I can't go on experience and I don't want to misinform you.

Plus i'm not really sure I understand your question? At the moment, as she is missing, there is no affect on social services. I wouldn't want to comment on what would happen if she was found. This is a completely grey area for me and it's an unusual case.

In general I would say it's much easier for social services when the parents have responsibility (or it is shared with the L.A) because if the parents are being cooperative then you can get their permission to take actions. When you have to apply to the high court all the time it's time consuming and delays things. Of course when parents are being uncooperative you have to go through the courts anyway.

 

[Gem2626]

On other forums to do with this case, all the apologists for the McCanns trot out the same arguments, almost verbatim at times. ie;
Their behaviour in leaving their children is "normal"
Eddie (cadaver dog) reacts to body fluids of living people and alerted to a piece of coconut. (he reacted to the ground where it was found, humans found it and decided it looked like a piece of skull)
Various smears are made against Martin Grimes who was a well respected dog handler.
It all sickens me

bbm sbm,

Couldn't agree more, desperate moves by desperate people!
Fact is the dogs dont get it wrong, humans do!
Haute de la Garenne is the biggest can of worms out there, one day hopefully it will all come to light, but I'm not holding my breath[/QUOTE]

Sky news report on a study carried out by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) into the reliability of dogs and dog training.

http://news.sky.com/story/844071/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work

 

[BritsKate]

First of all, there were no bodies found in the jersey case and the dogs alerted, so like you say people can get their interpreations of the alerts incorrect.

This is what Grimes says about Eddie in his report to the PJ in regards to the mccann case "'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain." (the link is http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm)

So one can see that a) eddie is not a cadaver dog, but an enhanced victim reocery dog and b) he does alert to bodily fluids. This is Grimes's, his handler, belief and I see no reason to challenge him and claim Grimes is wrong and that his dog is actually a cadaver dog and does not alert to bodily fluids. this was what caused the problem in jersey, people like the media, hyped up the dogs so that when it turned out his alerts did not mean a body was there it was damaging. Yet in fact Grimes stated his dog would alert to bodily fluids, so it is not his fault if people incorrectly claimed the alerts meant there had to be a body there. It is those claiming that Eddie only alerts to cadavers who have in effect smeared Grimes by claiming the dogs only alert to cadavers.

And yes, being fifty metres away from sleeping children is not unusual hence the nanny listening services are perfectly legal and still in widespread use thorughout the EU.

BBM

IMO this is moving the goalpost. It is not an issue if parents are 50 metres away from a sleeping child but rather a parent leaving a child unattended in an unsecured hotel room, out of both auditory and visual range, while they drank and dined.

However since apparently it is so usual and commonplace for parents to utilise nanny listening services I would greatly appreciate a link to statistics to support that claim. (Rather moot since the McCann's didn't use one anyway but I'll admit to curiosity since no parent I know - British or American would feel at all comfortable with the service.)

I realise some hotels offer it...but how many parents actually use it please? TIA