Justice For Families

Way back in 2001, just as New Labour was launching a consultation on what would become the now-corrupted Working Together initiative, the National Autism Society realized that many of the criteria for spotting "abuse" were actually diagnosis pointers to spectrum disorders.

NAS commissioned Dr Judith Gould, Director - The Centre for Social & Communication Disorders and Judith Barnard, Director - Policy & Public Affairs - NAS to write it's response to Jacqui Smith - then a Health Secretary, and the oft-mentioned Jenny Gray whose enthusiasm for establishing the conditions for MSBP/Witchcraft Syndrome false allegations is well documented http://www.parents-protecting-children.org.uk/news_doc_lb001.asp

Of course the NAS's concerns came to fruition - thousands of children have been forcibly taken from their families using false allegations of MSBP. As the children don't magically improve after being removed (because they have autism) on occasions social workers have made additional false allegations of MSBP, this time against adoption parents, in an effort to move the children on and continue the lie. At least 200 children were forcibly removed using false MSBP allegations when their parents complained that the MMR jab had caused autism - probably one of New Labours as yet undiscussed crimes whilst in office.

The Secret Courts of course took it all in, quite happy to view autism and spectrum disorders, diagnosed or not as being caused by the mother. This witchcraft concept of autism has taken hold amongst psychiatrists and social workers (and some CP Police who assisted with the forced removals) together with many Secret Court judges. The scandal continues today, but NAS isn't interested in pursuing Labour over it's harrassment of the parents of autistic children, probably for fear of losing funding. In its place other groups have arisen to fill the shortfall NAS has left - most notably the Autism Research Institute.

So NAS's submission is a historical document - but an interesting one nonetheless. It provides an insight into how some professionals realized that New Labour's enthusiasm for the false MSBP allegation regime (they had knighted Sir Meadow three years before) was going to impact upon some of the most vulnerable children in society.

http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=242&a=2407

Safeguarding children in whom illness is induced or fabricated by carers with parenting responsibilities: consultation from the Department of Health

Response from the National Autistic Society

The NAS response raises the concerns of many in the autism community that the focus on MSBP may raise unfounded suspicions of abuse about parents of children with ASD. The original consultation can be found at http://www.doh.gov.uk/scg/safeguardingchildren.pdf

The National Autistic Society is the leading charity for autistic spectrum disorders in the UK. It has a membership of over 11,000, a network of 65 branches, and 60 affiliated organisations in autism.

A meeting with Health Minister Jacqui Smith took place on Thursday 11 October 2001 when the National Autistic Society (NAS) raised grave concerns about this guidance document and the impact it would have on parents of children with autism. In acknowledging these concerns it was agreed that representatives of the NAS would meet with Jenny Gray, the official responsible for this consultation, in order that the Society's detailed comments and concerns could be taken on board.

This response is therefore a summary of the key concerns that this document has raised within the autism community.

A rare condition

Factitious or induced illness would seem to be an extremely rare condition - even accepting that it may be under-reported. The health professionals at whom the guidance is targeted are likely to encounter far many more examples of other conditions - such as autistic spectrum disorders before they come across an example of this type of abuse. It is estimated that 91 people in every 10,000 have an autistic spectrum disorder. A practitioner could therefore see 1,820 people with an autistic spectrum disorder for every one case of factitious or induced illness (0.5 per 100,000). Without putting factitious or induced illness into a proper context the NAS fears that there may be an 'epidemic' of this type of abuse, with many parents/carers reported as abusers, when the reality is that their children have very real but undiagnosed conditions such as autism. If this guidance on factitious or induced illness has to be issued, then this rare form of abuse must be put into an appropriate context, with a list of prevalence figures for other, more common, conditions which could explain the 'symptoms' which are said to indicate possible abuse.

Why a concern for autism?

The reason that the autism community is appalled by this guidance is two-fold:

* Firstly, the list in chapter two (para 2.16) which describes symptoms which may occur as a result of abuse is a list of classic pointers to autistic spectrum disorders. These symptoms are, however, presented in a very subjective way (see our light italic type, below) - underlying causes are implied, yet the people being asked to recognise these symptoms are not qualified to make these judgements. There could be many other reasons for these symptoms, all of which must be ruled out by referral to appropriate specialists before suspecting factitious or induced illness in the parent.
o Delay in speech and language or motor development as a result of distress;
o Development of feeding disorders as a result of unpleasant feeding interactions;
o Dislike of close physical contact and cuddling because it recalls episodes of smothering;
o Development of attachment disorders as a result of the mother-child relationship being over-controlled;
o Low self-esteem as a result of not being able to understand why they have been abused in this way;
o Having no or poor quality relationships with peers because their opportunities for social interactions are restricted;
o Under-achievement at school because of frequent interruptions in attendance;
o Development of abnormal attitudes to their own health (for example, the development of abnormal illness behaviour and even somatoform disorders) because of their abnormal experiences

This list of symptoms is likely to become the 'cut out and keep' checklist for your average health practitioner from the 60-plus pages of this guidance document. In order to avoid a wrong diagnosis, a full developmental history of the child must be taken by a qualified clinical professional before the possibility of an autistic spectrum disorder can be ruled out. There are undoubtedly many other conditions which may cause one or more of these symptoms. All of these must also be ruled out through assessments by appropriate specialists.
* Secondly, awareness of autism amongst all the groups identified in this guidance is very low. Given that autism is far more prevalent than 'factitious or induced illness' there is an urgent need for guidance on autistic spectrum disorder to be issued by the Department. This particular guidance document places a huge weight and importance on a very rare form of child abuse, out of all proportion to its prevalence. Yet a complex and far more common condition such as autism is not taken as seriously as it needs to be.


Secrecy

This guidance overemphasises the need to keep any suspicions of this type of parental abuse secret from the parents. It is emphasised at least nine times (five times in the space of two pages, sometimes in bold type) that concerns should not be raised with parents if this might put the child at risk. Whilst the NAS acknowledges the reasoning for this, in practice this means that parents are completely unaware that they are under any type of suspicion - perhaps even the subject of a police investigation - when they believe they are merely fighting for a diagnosis for their child. This is taking us back to the dark ages in autism when cold parenting was blamed for autism. It is unacceptable. As soon as there is any suggestion that the parent is at fault the real needs of the child are overlooked and the parents become the subject of investigation. The document places more emphasis on assessing the family rather than the child. This balance must be redressed if the guidance is to avoid wrongful allegations of 'factitious or induced illness'.

Over anxious parent or perpetrator of abuse?

Professionals are asked to judge whether parents are understandably anxious in their dealings with medical practitioners, or whether their behaviour indicates they are responsible for significant harm. The NAS has clear evidence that in cases of autism parents often have to wait several years before their child obtains a diagnosis, and they have to see several different practitioners along the way, often fighting for referrals. Inevitably they present themselves with increasing anxiety the longer it seems that their child's needs are going unrecognised and unmet. A 1999 report showed that more than 40% of parents wait over three years for a diagnosis of autism (15% between five and nine years, and 10% more than ten years). They are likely to have to see several different practitioners before a diagnosis is confirmed: 65% saw three or more professionals before they got a diagnosis; 23% saw five or more (Opening the Door, Stirling and Prior 1999). This guidance indicates that these parental behaviours could be interpreted as further evidence of abuse on the part of the parent. Yet our evidence demonstrates that there are justifiable reasons for parents of children with autism to present their concerns in this way.

Autism: different behaviours in different settings

Experts in autism recognise that people with this complex disability can behave very differently in different settings. It is therefore fairly common that health practitioners will not witness the behaviours and symptoms that parents describe during an assessment. This is a feature of the disability. It should not therefore be seen as further evidence of abuse by the parent.

Judgments by unqualified professionals

A huge responsibility is placed on social services staff by this guidance, and yet they cannot be qualified to recognise the wide range of conditions which might affect a child and which must be ruled out before suspecting this extremely rare form of child abuse. It fails to encourage referral to experts in order to rule out the wide range of psychological or developmental disorders which may be responsible for the symptoms and it fails to put this rare form of abuse into context.

Assessing the family at the expense of diagnosing the child

Despite an emphasis on the best interests of the child there is a grave risk that professionals will be more inclined to assess the family's behaviours at the expense of failing to identify the very real problems and needs of the child. This is borne out by the observations in chapter two (para 2.32) and chapter three (para 3.54) that even when removed from their 'abusers' they may continue to have emotional and behavioural difficulties. Perhaps this is because they have autism or a similar disorder which doesn't go away by moving the child. It has to be recognised and the right sort of support provided.

In summary

* The far higher prevalence of autism and other developmental/social and communication disorders must be acknowledged in order to place the likelihood of MSBP in a proper context. Otherwise we will see an epidemic of MSBP and actions similar to Cleveland.
* The checklist in para 2.16 should be removed as it is misleading, subjective and there are many other potential causes for the symptoms it describes which require specialist referral and diagnosis.
* Guidance should actively state the need for a full developmental history to be taken in order to rule out developmental disorders such as autism. There should be a thorough elimination of all other possibilities resulting to the child before suspecting abuse by the parent.
* Autism awareness training must be provided for practitioners, particularly for social workers, Area Child Protection Committees and the police.
* Social care and health workers must understand that the symptoms outlined in chapter two can be explained in other ways and they should be trained to identify the underlying reasons for such behaviours accurately in order to refer to an appropriate specialist
* Guidance needs to acknowledge that children with autism may present differently in different settings. Therefore just because behaviours are not witnessed by practitioners in other settings this does not mean that they are not happening at home.

The whole issue of factitious or induced illness - or Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, as it is more familiarly known as in the autism community - is one of rising concern. Significant numbers of families are finding themselves accused of this form of abuse. There are serious concerns that this guidance will lead to a huge increase in the identification of this rare condition at the expense of identifying the real needs of the child. A Cleveland-style epidemic is feared.

The NAS is keen to work closely with the Department of Health to resolve these issues to ensure that children with autism and their families receive appropriate diagnosis, services and support, without weakening necessary child protection procedures.

Submitted by:
Dr Judith Gould, Director - The Centre for Social & Communication Disorders
Judith Barnard, Director - Policy & Public Affairs
On behalf of The National Autistic Society
31 October 2001

I'm sorry, but I laughed when I read this...

As the children don't magically improve after being removed (because they have autism)

That sort of sums up the intelligence and critical thinking skills of our social workers, surely, they'd wait and see the outcome of Autism tests first, as then the child will be statemented, and extra help made available.

The SS consider themselves more intelligent than doctors, when they have no medical training and no logical basis for their decisions.

thanks for this , had to reply as you have just explained my case to a T,
I actually used that same letter from dr Gould as part of my evidence.
Not that it made a scrap of difference of course or the fact I had the backing
of the world authority on aspergers syndrome to back me up either.
They prefered to believe their expert who in fact specialised in Satanic ritual abuse....

thats the courts for you though...

TRUTH

TRUTH wrote:thanks for this , had to reply as you have just explained my case to a T,
I actually used that same letter from dr Gould as part of my evidence.
Not that it made a scrap of difference of course or the fact I had the backing
of the world authority on aspergers syndrome to back me up either.
They prefered to believe their expert who in fact specialised in Satanic ritual abuse....

thats the courts for you though...

TRUTH

Some psychiatrists that the Secret Courts use are Christian Fundamentalists and accordingly believe in "demons in the head." This is leftover from the SRA days, and although there is no easy means to confirm it - it appears many social workers and even child protection police officers together with a minority of Secret Court judges are inclined to believe that aspergers/autism is caused by women - and often because of demonic possession and/or witchcraft. The heady days of the 1990's aren't too long ago and no-one was ever sacked for the SRA myth and quite likely many of those trained by Christian fundamentalists such as the Reachout Trust are still working in child protection/family justice.

One posting some time ago referred to one "expert" in days gone by working for Truro Secret Court. If your Secret Court expert is still a believer in SRA then it is quite likely he determined your child is possessed by demons and/or you are a witch - though his report certainly won't say that.

Can you write anything more about your case? How did you come to find your "expert" was a believer/expert in SRA? Were you able to Appeal? Who was the world authority in asperger's that you used? Did the SS propose that your child was an SRA victim? Did your social workers/police officers in the case exhibit signs of Christian Fundamentalism? Did the Secret Court propose any care plan to help your child deal with his/her Aspergers? Which Secret Court did this take place in?

When the Secret Courts start determining that Aspergers/autism is related to mythical SRA it is always disturbing. I might be pursuing a conspiracy theory here - but not much seems to have changed since those "all women are witches!" days of the 1990's.

thanks for the reply peavey

I found out about the court expert basically by burning the midnight oil
researching his name, he was involved in the Nottingham SRA cases in the 1990 s were a lot of chilsren were removed from their families.
If you were to google it its under the heading Broxtowe case, warning the content kinda makes your hair curl...
He made a fatal mistake back then in that he stated all the children interviewed had been subjected to SRA if not sexual abuse. Though later it was found to be a crock of crap. Also an x social worker that went into paediatrics back in 1987. A regular in the Family Courts (SALFORD) is a real sleazy character. I questioned his assessment and how I felt it not appropriate when it was no secret a autistic spectrum disorder specialist was needed not a SRA or sexual abuse specialist it was totally innopropriate.

However Cafcass was determined that this expert was the one and my own solicitor blocked me from officially objecting, tried to convince me I had agreed and besides the work was now underway.
I knew this expert wasnt going to do me any favours but nothing prepared me for the highly personal antagonistic report he wrote about me.
Cant say I detected any underlying religious principles afoot it was out and out conspiracy as far as Im concerned.
The world authority I speak of lives in Austrailia and is the only specialist that specialises in Aspergers syndrome alone. I was also supported by his understudy that assisted him in writing his latest book , for professionals I
meant add...
This person is an author herself an a highly regarded educational specialist that lectures undergraduates in america , austrailia and here in the UK.
In court she offered her services to assist the courts in understanding this complex condition aspergers syndrome.
They took her up on that offer but went on to cross examine her for four hours at the end purely out of emotional exhaustion she burst into tears, then was criticised for not being subjective enough....

I can't believe what I'm reading, those who actually believed in Satanic Ritual Abuse, are still out there....
Oh JEEESSSSSUUSSSSSSS
(no pun intended).

Secrets wrote:I can't believe what I'm reading, those who actually believed in Satanic Ritual Abuse, are still out there....
Oh JEEESSSSSUUSSSSSSS
(no pun intended).

Oh, they are never far away - this from Nick Land 2002, from the CMF - Christian Medical Fellowship in the UK, with 4,500 members in the UK and about 1,000 student members. Nick Land is currently Clinical Director of Learning Disability Services and Forensic Services at Tees, Esk and Wear Valley NHS Trust.

Psychiatry and Christianity - Poles Apart?

http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=310

...Discussing this (demonic possession with a Christian consultant colleague, we had each seen only one case in fifteen years of psychiatric practice that we felt might be directly caused by demonic possession. Interestingly the British Journal of Psychiatry did carry a case report of possible demonic possession in September 1994.[2] There is a definite tendency for Christian medical students to over diagnose ‘possession’ and the following advice may be given on assessment and management if you were part of a church counselling or ministry team:


a) Take a good history. Is there extensive involvement in occult or witchcraft activities? But note in Acts 19:18 that those heavily involved in sorcery needed to confess their sin, not be exorcised; hence occult involvement does not always imply possession.
b) Are there symptoms that are atypical of psychiatric or physical illness? A five-week psychiatry attachment may not be sufficient to determine this with confidence!
c) Is there agreement between a number of levelheaded Christians who have spent considerable time praying about the matter?
d) When we look at Jesus’ ministry, we find he only exorcised when asked to do so by the representative of the sufferer or when there was demonic manifestation in front of him. He is not recorded as going to people with the proposition that they have demons to be cast out.

In summary, I firmly believe in the reality of demon possession. However, we must be very careful not to overdiagnose this, as well as remembering that demonic activity may manifest itself in both physical and psychiatric illness.

over diagnose ‘possession’? Did you read that right? Oh yes. Apparently it can be over-diagnosed.

Now I have to wonder, and I've wondered for a long time now - how many Christian psychiatrists are working as experts in the Secret Courts of England and Wales?

Perhaps it's none - and somehow there isn't a single instance of a woman being told by a Secret Court to be assessed by a chosen "expert" who determines that the woman is subject to "demonic possession" (or perhaps ALL women are subject to demonic possession.) But seeing as the Secret Courts are...well, secret, and as the experts enjoy the Power of being not subject to peer review, how can we tell?

Oh and of course, these people like to promote the idea of demonic posession;

The Growing Evidence for 'Demonic Possession': What should Psychiatry's Response Be?" (2005) Author: Stafford Betty

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m0360454x24t1401/

(abstract)

Evidence of evil spirits is voluminous and comes from many cultures, both ancient and modern. Cases from China, India, and the United States are examined and evaluated. The actual experience of spirit victims, the universality of spirit oppression, the superhuman phenomena associated with possession, and the comparative success of deliverance and exorcism vs. psychiatry are considered. Potential arguments against the spirit hypothesis center on the antecedent improbability of spirits, multiple personality disorder, and the effectiveness of medication; but these can be countered. Psychiatrists should question their materialist assumption that mental illness is strictly a matter of an aberrant brain, carefully examine the literature of possession, experiment to determine why exorcists and deliverance ministers often succeed where psychiatry fails, and develop a more complete inventory of techniques for healing the complete person.

And we have one of the favourite fads for English & Welsh SS and Secret Courts mentioned multiple personality disorder

Perhaps this is why so many women - told to get therapy after the Secret Court-appointed expert has determined an MPD or other alleged aberation - go to the NHS to find no professional there can find a problem. Perhaps the Secret Courts really mean "get an exorcism" from a fundamentalist therapist but women aren't quite getting the hint yet - so they lose their children as a result.

Now that's a conspiracy theory with a bit of credence.

Oh, and New Labour have been obsessed with having children with autism put into care. I wonder who promotes that;

Terrance Cottrell Jr. was winding down his summer in Milwaukee, getting ready for a new school year at a new school. The boy did not live the untroubled life of other 8-year-old children, suffering as he did from autism, and his mother would be sending him to a school better able to deal with his condition. Then one Sunday morning in August he was made the focus of a religious ceremony of a kind that still mystifies most of the public. The Cottrell family minister, Ray Hemphill, performed an exorcism to cast out demons and thereby heal Terrance of his condition. The faithful gathered around the boy in their storefront Apostolic church and held him on the ground even as he struggled against them. Because of his diminished capacity to communicate, a result of autism, Terrance was unable to tell the pastor that he could not breathe. After two hours of prayers for exorcism, someone finally noticed the boy wasn't breathing.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_Nov_24/ai_110364122

Our Secret Courts and social workers do all they can to suggest they are stuck in the 17th Century. I suspect that is truer than we think.

totally gobsmacked.....

this is horrendous never the less extremely
interesting, thank you for posting this.

I must investigate this further.

truth

Sent: 12 November 2008 04:08
To: The National Autistic Society
Subject: enquiry

I am sending this email out of concern regarding many mothers including myself
at one point, who have been unceremoniously being caught in the trap of the child
protection procedures, for being a mother on a mission wanting an explination for our childs behavior.
I will not go into the details as the whole thing for myself ended up in the family courts, where
by the luck of the gods I managed to hold onto my son as a result of hard work and self litigation.

From my understanding:
Way back in 2001, just as New Labour was launching a consultation on what would become the now-corrupted Working Together initiative, the National Autism Society realized that many of the criteria for spotting "abuse" were actually diagnosis pointers to spectrum disorders.

NAS commissioned Dr Judith Gould, Director - The Centre for Social & Communication Disorders and Judith Barnard, Director - Policy & Public Affairs - NAS to write it's response to Jacqui Smith - then a Health Secretary, and the oft-mentioned Jenny Gray whose enthusiasm for establishing the conditions for MSBP/Witchcraft Syndrome false allegations is well documented http://www.parents-protecting-children. ... _lb001.asp

Of course the NAS's concerns came to fruition - thousands of children have been forcibly taken from their families using false allegations of MSBP. As the children don't magically improve after being removed (because they have autism) on occasions social workers have made additional false allegations of MSBP, this time against adoption parents, in an effort to move the children on and continue the lie. At least 200 children were forcibly removed using false MSBP allegations when their parents complained that the MMR jab had caused autism - probably one of New Labours as yet undiscussed crimes whilst in office.

The Secret Courts of course took it all in, quite happy to view autism and spectrum disorders, diagnosed or not as being caused by the mother. This witchcraft concept of autism has taken hold amongst psychiatrists and social workers (and some CP Police who assisted with the forced removals) together with many Secret Court judges. The scandal continues today, but NAS isn't interested in pursuing Labour over it's harrassment of the parents of autistic children, probably for fear of losing funding. In its place other groups have arisen to fill the shortfall NAS has left - most notably the Autism Research Institute.

So NAS's submission is a historical document - but an interesting one nonetheless. It provides an insight into how some professionals realized that New Labour's enthusiasm for the false MSBP allegation regime (they had knighted Sir Meadow three years before) was going to impact upon some of the most vulnerable children in society.

http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=242&a=2407

Safeguarding children in whom illness is induced or fabricated by carers with parenting responsibilities: consultation from the Department of Health

Response from the National Autistic Society

The NAS response raises the concerns of many in the autism community that the focus on MSBP may raise unfounded suspicions of abuse about parents of children with ASD. The original consultation can be found at http://www.doh.gov.uk/scg/safeguardingchildren.pdf

The National Autistic Society is the leading charity for autistic spectrum disorders in the UK. It has a membership of over 11,000, a network of 65 branches, and 60 affiliated organisations in autism.

A meeting with Health Minister Jacqui Smith took place on Thursday 11 October 2001 when the National Autistic Society (NAS) raised grave concerns about this guidance document and the impact it would have on parents of children with autism. In acknowledging these concerns it was agreed that representatives of the NAS would meet with Jenny Gray, the official responsible for this consultation, in order that the Society's detailed comments and concerns could be taken on board.

This response is therefore a summary of the key concerns that this document has raised within the autism community.

A rare condition

Factitious or induced illness would seem to be an extremely rare condition - even accepting that it may be under-reported. The health professionals at whom the guidance is targeted are likely to encounter far many more examples of other conditions - such as autistic spectrum disorders before they come across an example of this type of abuse. It is estimated that 91 people in every 10,000 have an autistic spectrum disorder. A practitioner could therefore see 1,820 people with an autistic spectrum disorder for every one case of factitious or induced illness (0.5 per 100,000). Without putting factitious or induced illness into a proper context the NAS fears that there may be an 'epidemic' of this type of abuse, with many parents/carers reported as abusers, when the reality is that their children have very real but undiagnosed conditions such as autism. If this guidance on factitious or induced illness has to be issued, then this rare form of abuse must be put into an appropriate context, with a list of prevalence figures for other, more common, conditions which could explain the 'symptoms' which are said to indicate possible abuse.

Why a concern for autism?

The reason that the autism community is appalled by this guidance is two-fold:

* Firstly, the list in chapter two (para 2.16) which describes symptoms which may occur as a result of abuse is a list of classic pointers to autistic spectrum disorders. These symptoms are, however, presented in a very subjective way (see our light italic type, below) - underlying causes are implied, yet the people being asked to recognise these symptoms are not qualified to make these judgements. There could be many other reasons for these symptoms, all of which must be ruled out by referral to appropriate specialists before suspecting factitious or induced illness in the parent.
o Delay in speech and language or motor development as a result of distress;
o Development of feeding disorders as a result of unpleasant feeding interactions;
o Dislike of close physical contact and cuddling because it recalls episodes of smothering;
o Development of attachment disorders as a result of the mother-child relationship being over-controlled;
o Low self-esteem as a result of not being able to understand why they have been abused in this way;
o Having no or poor quality relationships with peers because their opportunities for social interactions are restricted;
o Under-achievement at school because of frequent interruptions in attendance;
o Development of abnormal attitudes to their own health (for example, the development of abnormal illness behaviour and even somatoform disorders) because of their abnormal experiences

This list of symptoms is likely to become the 'cut out and keep' checklist for your average health practitioner from the 60-plus pages of this guidance document. In order to avoid a wrong diagnosis, a full developmental history of the child must be taken by a qualified clinical professional before the possibility of an autistic spectrum disorder can be ruled out. There are undoubtedly many other conditions which may cause one or more of these symptoms. All of these must also be ruled out through assessments by appropriate specialists.
* Secondly, awareness of autism amongst all the groups identified in this guidance is very low. Given that autism is far more prevalent than 'factitious or induced illness' there is an urgent need for guidance on autistic spectrum disorder to be issued by the Department. This particular guidance document places a huge weight and importance on a very rare form of child abuse, out of all proportion to its prevalence. Yet a complex and far more common condition such as autism is not taken as seriously as it needs to be.


Secrecy

This guidance overemphasises the need to keep any suspicions of this type of parental abuse secret from the parents. It is emphasised at least nine times (five times in the space of two pages, sometimes in bold type) that concerns should not be raised with parents if this might put the child at risk. Whilst the NAS acknowledges the reasoning for this, in practice this means that parents are completely unaware that they are under any type of suspicion - perhaps even the subject of a police investigation - when they believe they are merely fighting for a diagnosis for their child. This is taking us back to the dark ages in autism when cold parenting was blamed for autism. It is unacceptable. As soon as there is any suggestion that the parent is at fault the real needs of the child are overlooked and the parents become the subject of investigation. The document places more emphasis on assessing the family rather than the child. This balance must be redressed if the guidance is to avoid wrongful allegations of 'factitious or induced illness'.

Over anxious parent or perpetrator of abuse?

Professionals are asked to judge whether parents are understandably anxious in their dealings with medical practitioners, or whether their behaviour indicates they are responsible for significant harm. The NAS has clear evidence that in cases of autism parents often have to wait several years before their child obtains a diagnosis, and they have to see several different practitioners along the way, often fighting for referrals. Inevitably they present themselves with increasing anxiety the longer it seems that their child's needs are going unrecognised and unmet. A 1999 report showed that more than 40% of parents wait over three years for a diagnosis of autism (15% between five and nine years, and 10% more than ten years). They are likely to have to see several different practitioners before a diagnosis is confirmed: 65% saw three or more professionals before they got a diagnosis; 23% saw five or more (Opening the Door, Stirling and Prior 1999). This guidance indicates that these parental behaviours could be interpreted as further evidence of abuse on the part of the parent. Yet our evidence demonstrates that there are justifiable reasons for parents of children with autism to present their concerns in this way.

Autism: different behaviours in different settings

Experts in autism recognise that people with this complex disability can behave very differently in different settings. It is therefore fairly common that health practitioners will not witness the behaviours and symptoms that parents describe during an assessment. This is a feature of the disability. It should not therefore be seen as further evidence of abuse by the parent.

Judgments by unqualified professionals

A huge responsibility is placed on social services staff by this guidance, and yet they cannot be qualified to recognise the wide range of conditions which might affect a child and which must be ruled out before suspecting this extremely rare form of child abuse. It fails to encourage referral to experts in order to rule out the wide range of psychological or developmental disorders which may be responsible for the symptoms and it fails to put this rare form of abuse into context.

Assessing the family at the expense of diagnosing the child

Despite an emphasis on the best interests of the child there is a grave risk that professionals will be more inclined to assess the family's behaviours at the expense of failing to identify the very real problems and needs of the child. This is borne out by the observations in chapter two (para 2.32) and chapter three (para 3.54) that even when removed from their 'abusers' they may continue to have emotional and behavioural difficulties. Perhaps this is because they have autism or a similar disorder which doesn't go away by moving the child. It has to be recognised and the right sort of support provided.

In summary

* The far higher prevalence of autism and other developmental/social and communication disorders must be acknowledged in order to place the likelihood of MSBP in a proper context. Otherwise we will see an epidemic of MSBP and actions similar to Cleveland.
* The checklist in para 2.16 should be removed as it is misleading, subjective and there are many other potential causes for the symptoms it describes which require specialist referral and diagnosis.
* Guidance should actively state the need for a full developmental history to be taken in order to rule out developmental disorders such as autism. There should be a thorough elimination of all other possibilities resulting to the child before suspecting abuse by the parent.
* Autism awareness training must be provided for practitioners, particularly for social workers, Area Child Protection Committees and the police.
* Social care and health workers must understand that the symptoms outlined in chapter two can be explained in other ways and they should be trained to identify the underlying reasons for such behaviours accurately in order to refer to an appropriate specialist
* Guidance needs to acknowledge that children with autism may present differently in different settings. Therefore just because behaviours are not witnessed by practitioners in other settings this does not mean that they are not happening at home.

The whole issue of factitious or induced illness - or Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, as it is more familiarly known as in the autism community - is one of rising concern. Significant numbers of families are finding themselves accused of this form of abuse. There are serious concerns that this guidance will lead to a huge increase in the identification of this rare condition at the expense of identifying the real needs of the child. A Cleveland-style epidemic is feared.

The NAS is keen to work closely with the Department of Health to resolve these issues to ensure that children with autism and their families receive appropriate diagnosis, services and support, without weakening necessary child protection procedures.

Submitted by:
Dr Judith Gould, Director - The Centre for Social & Communication Disorders
Judith Barnard, Director - Policy & Public Affairs
On behalf of The National Autistic Society
31 October 2001

My question as we are almost in 2009 is what has been done about about this ? Who was responsible for pushing these concerns through parliment. What happened ?

[b]From my understanding not a lot has changed,partly through the lack of training of aspergers/asd s social workers within individual Local Authorities. Many families go through hell on earth and are not as lucky as myself in that their children are removed.
Who, can I please ask, is thinking for one minute about these children that are removed from perhaps the only people who truely know and love them?
I do not need to remind anyone Im sure, of the damage it does to the child both emotionally
and psychologically, I have witnessed this first hand...
It is also curious as to why a large portion of children in care have communication problems.

Thank you for your time I look forward to your reply,

p.allen[/b]


Dear Mr/Ms Allen,

Thank you for your email. In terms of the guidance that you refer to, our critical concern was regarding the list of potential symptoms of abuse, which mirrored many of the symptoms of autism. That list was not included in the final version of the guidance, published in 2002 and re-issued earlier this year.

The NAS has been working with a group of other organisations to monitor these issues and look at how we can address these issues. Last year we asked Ann MacIntosh MP to raise the issue by asking a question in Parliament on the issue of children with autism who are suspected of having fabricated or induced illness.

We are currently working with the British Association of Social Workers and other organisations to raise awareness of autism among social workers and to get greater autism content in initial social worker training. This should help ensure that social workers have an understanding of autism, and consider the condition and its implications when working with families.

However, at present we are not planning to do any work on this issue in the near future, in part because we find it difficult to gather a strong evidence base to act on. If you are able to provide any evidence or examples of cases where this has happened you would be very welcome to send them to us for consideration for any future work we do on this.

We are also working to improve social care services for families more widely to prevent families reaching crisis point. Following the tragic death of Alison Davies and her son Ryan in 2006, we got MPs to table a motion calling for improved family support for parents and carers of children with autism and related conditions. 170 MPs signed the motion from across the different political parties. You can read the motion here: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ... ESSION=875

We lobbied hard to get a specific recognition of the needs of children with autism including as the Government developed its Disabled Children's Services Review, Aiming High for Disabled Children. This review resulted in £280million being committed over the next three years to develop short breaks for disabled children, with a specific focus on autism. In addition we were part of the group who lobbied successfully to create a new legal duty on local authorities to provide short breaks for families of disabled children as part of the new Children and Young People Act 2008.

Kind regards,

Beth Reid
Policy Manager
National Autistic Society
393 City Road, London EC1V 1NG

I've found a question asked about autism spectrrum disorders and social workers from Anne McIntosh (tory MP for the Vale of York)


http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-10-15b.152219.h&s=fabricated+speaker%3A10389#g152219.q0

It goes back to October 2007 and the written question is;

To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what representations he has received on cases where schoolchildren have been categorised as having fabricated and induced illness but where it has transpired that the symptoms giving rise to this concern were the result of the child being on the autistic spectrum.


The New Labour response (via Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families) was;

The Secretary of State has recently received a letter from Autism Consultancy Services which, among much else, mentions the issue of the parents of autistic children "being scrutinised unnecessarily for conditions such as Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy".

In 2002 the Government published their guidance 'Safeguarding children in whom illness is fabricated or induced: Supplementary guidance to Working Together to Safeguard Children'. In view of the controversy concerning the term Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy the guidance refers only to cases of 'fabricated or induced illness', specifically where such behaviour constitutes an abusive act against a child. The National Autistic Society made representations to officials and Ministers at the Department of Health on the text of the draft guidance and said that the Society was content with the final text. It included advice on the importance of clarifying the contributing factors and identifying any underlying conditions which may play a part in the developmental delay of children who have been identified as having illness fabricated or induced.

So it appears NAS actually approved the text that went in the Working Together final draft, whereupon the very circumstances that they had warned of, actually occured.

Jim Knight's answer indicates that New Labour are perfectly aware that children with autism spectrum conditions are being (in his quoted words taken from a submitted report) "being scrutinised unnecessarily for conditions such as Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy".

And the response by New Labour on being informed of this?

Diddly squat.

An indication of how much New Labour hates autistic folk and those who campaign for them was provided by the very same Autism Consultancy Services that Jim Knight MP referred-to in the Commons written reply above;

When I contacted the Chief Executive of the Disability Rights Commission (Bob Niven), the Minister for the Disabled (Anne McGuire) and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism with an offer to present them my findings/outcomes I was told "my research is unnecessary, irrelevant and bias" I have written to Tony Blair and David Blunkett as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and to date I have not had a reply or an acknowledgement, as for David Blunkett I even arranged for my letter to be typed in Braille and offered to send a cassette/CD with the letter dictated.

(Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeduski/478/478we50.htm)

Strange that - decline to engage in discussions with the group, but then subsequently refer to their report in a written reply.

OMG!! This is what happened to me and my family!! My daughter was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and had speech problems, toiletting problems, developmental delay and social problems. After asking for an ASD assessment the daoctor was very rude to me and referred me to GOSH (illegally as the complaint I made him was upheld and he was not meant to be involved) and to the SS. By January 4th 08, GOSH decided my daughter did not have anything wrong, needed to be taken out of special school and stripped of her statement. I was accused of MSBP and my husband of secual abuse for doing physiotherapy. My daughter was put onto CPP and police tried to do us for benefit fraud for having DLA for my daughter!! However, the doctor in Derbyshire who had diagnosed my daughter and seen her for 4 years (as opposed to GOSH who saw her for 4 days) had written to DLA and the fraud case was dropped.

Since then my daughter has moved mainstream and all the issues I had raised with this ASD consultant and he had said was proof of MSBP have been noted and written in a report by the new school. They want her statement ncreased and she is struggling to cope in her new setting. The school said there is no evidence of abuse and that my child should be taken of the CPP but the SW is racist and nasty and wants to keep her on it as long as my husband and I have concerns over her welfare. Apparently that means sheis at rsk of significant harm.
OMG I don't know if it is good or bad that others are facing the same as me. My son has confirmed Aspergers but lives with my mother after I fled domestic violence. They even waned to udiagnose HIM!!

These people have no kids of their own and condemn us for trying to be good parents. I am being punished for complaining about that doctor andit being upheld. I had to put in a stage 2 complaint against the SW aswell, some of which was upheld again!!

They cannot do their jobs and spend their time looking for abuse and manipulating everything to fit their twisted view of the world.

Get a book called Munchausens syndrome by proxy reconsidered. Get it through Amazon.com Brilliant book and explains wy it is a dangerous label to use on anyone.

Thanks guys..

Are you still on CPP in Derbyshire? If so I would be interested in talking to you....

Samhraw
similar position to your self regarding childs disablity, they deny ASD though claiming benefits for child.

Accused of exaggeration of ASD, making child out to be worse than it was according to them.
Would any parent accused of exaggeration of this nature by suspected of MSBP, though this was never
officially stated at any time in case?