Comments: Serious.

Oh dear. If I had known that you weren't on broadband, then I would have advised you against it. It's a very dangerous drug. Soon enough, you'll find yourself longing for a return to the simpler life, but by then it will be too late and you'll be unable to go back.

One of us, one of us...

Posted by Pete at April 5, 2006 12:26 PM

oh my goodness .... i'm so sorry to read this, robin. there's not much i can say other than you must be a marvellous friend to have.

Posted by zed at April 5, 2006 01:03 PM

As you say, the social services have been misled in a calculating manner. I would guess that they are not at all certain, but that they have a certain obligation to err on the side of the child's safety, in the face of the worst possible scenario, which is that the child is being abused - look at all the cases where they got this wrong, simply because there is very little hard evidence, just a lot of people with strong emotional agendas. I don't think this is liberal prejudice in favour of mothers, but a real human problem for the person who has to sift the evidence and make a decision.

That is not to say that I don't sympathise utterly with your friend's problem; what a horrible double-bind of a situation to be in. I hope the court proceedings prove to be more objective than you are expecting.

Posted by Karen at April 5, 2006 01:08 PM

I wish I could add to what Karen has said, but I can't

Posted by Gert at April 5, 2006 03:28 PM

Hello all. I was convinced this was a "comments 0" for sure. It stared well, at least with good intentions. I wanted to write about the past week but suddenly I remembered one thing above all others.

Zed: thank you though not everyone might agree.

Karen: the child is definitely being abused - medical evidence exists, the only question is who did it. The problem is that the SSS have returned the boy to the mother's household where her partner may or may not be continuing to assault him. This decision was based on the fact that the boy changed his story about who did it. On Friday it was the boyfriend: on Tuesday it was his father. The story changed when the mother got hold of him on the Monday. The mother/boyfriend's defence was that the father had done it, not them, and his motivation, in the absence of sexual gratification, was to discredit the mother and drive a wedge between her and her new partner. His reasons for doing this are not clearly stated, but the assumption is that he likes disputes and is psychotic (oh, and a secret alcoholic). How any sane, educated, professional person can stack up that load of unsupported fantasy against the classic step-father abuse scenario, undertaken for familiar base motives, is baffling. My friend has not helped himself by under-defending himself over a period of years from previous allegations from the mother, that he harasses her (investigated by the Police and dropped) and that he is a violent drunk. He kept schtum during much of this barrage and during a previous removal hearing (the mother wished to re-emigrate to the US) (oh, she returned after three weeks), in an attempt to cool the emotional climate surrounding the boy, and fearing that to look contentious would go against him (he is a lawyer).

Now he is accused of starting a fight he had no need to provoke, and of conceiving a plot that has not appeared in any form. Upsetting for me looking on, perhaps, but absolutely ruinous for him. And the boy.

Posted by robin at April 5, 2006 04:48 PM

I don't really know what to say, other than to echo Gert's (and thus Karen's) sentiment. I feel for your friend.

Posted by Hg at April 5, 2006 10:31 PM

Thanks Hg, and all.

I think I just needed to write it down somewhere.

Posted by robin at April 6, 2006 12:00 PM

Just get the judge, jury, witnesses and other 'hangers on' to watch "The Crucible". If, after that, they carry on with their persecution, then it's Tyburn for 'em.

Easy J'Accuse, easy....well you know.

Never that good at Franglais - as you can tell.

Posted by Steve at April 9, 2006 01:18 AM

Thanks Steve. "The Crucible" has come up in conversation. As we stand things are no better.

If pressed aggressively in the box I'm planning to say: "OooOOOooo. Calm down. If I worked for social services I'd say you had a need to impress, a severe hostility problem, sociopathic tendencies and a predisposition towards fantasy."

See how they like it.

Posted by robin at April 9, 2006 11:47 AM

>The mentality behind witch trials has not disappeared, it has just transformed itself into

the natural state of the bulk of humanity is hysteria

Posted by Saltation at April 18, 2006 10:03 PM