|
?:reviewBody
|
-
In February 2017 dubious web sites reported that a British couple lost custody of their children for co-sleeping -- with those sites downplaying the real mistreatment that led to the judge's decision against the parents. The story involved a child welfare custody hearing. The judge in the case, Peter Greene, ruled that a couple's young sons should be placed for adoption, citing concerns for their physical safety. Despite a previous hearing and court-approved supervision, the couple had not properly addressed the safety concerns, Greene ruled. A Telegraph article suggested that Greene's ruling was linked to his determination that the mother ignored advice against co-sleeping, or letting the children (born in 2014 and 2015) sleep in the same bed as the couple: Other web sites then presented the case as an example of judicial overreach. However, those sites failed to mention this statement from the court transcript regarding the mother's behavior concerning the older child (identified as B) and later with her younger son (identified as BJ): The court transcript also revealed that ongoing concerns over the childrens' welfare, rather than just co-sleeping activity, had prompted the hearing. At one point, the mother showed an observer a bruise on the BJ's calf. Initially she blamed a strap on his swing seat for the bruise, but a subsequent hospital examination revealed that the 4-month-old boy had also suffered a broken wrist and a bruised shoulder. All three injuries were attributed to non-accidental causes. When asked about the injuries, the mother at first offered no explanation. Later, she blamed the boys' father, and then the oldest son. However, Greene said, the father could not have been responsible because he was away from the children at the time of the infant's injuries and was supervised whenever he was around the children. A medical expert testified that the injuries were consistent with the boy's being forcefully put against or slammed against something along those lines with a flat edge the top of a piece of furniture, something that the older son could not have done. Based on the evidence, Greene ruled that the baby's injuries were more likely than not to have been caused by careless or negligent handling by the mother, but that she did not deliberately mean to hurt him: The Transparency Project, which advocates for greater transparency in the British family court system, criticized the Telegraph for their misleading headline regarding the case and later called for corrections from not only that news site but also from the Daily Mail and the Independent as well. Transparency Project chair Lucy Reed told us by email that her organization is concerned that inaccurate or skewed reporting of the circumstances in which children are removed in child protection cases may directly impact on the way other parents engage with child protections services, and may make it more difficult for them to ask for help when needed, or to work with services to show they are safe parents.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}