Interchangeable terminology of discrimination; one of them is allowed as “evidence” in family courts.

I wasn’t going to add a new entry until after Christmas but something came up that touched a nerve.

Those of us with autism and/or mental illnesses are definitely discriminated against by the likes of child protective services. I heard something on the news earlier today that a sportswoman has just had a baby. She is registered blind. There was me thinking maybe her partner isn’t disabled. It turns out that her partner is also registered blind to the point that they both rely on a guide dog.

Obviously that isn’t a problem. It gets interesting if we interchange the word ‘blind’ with ‘autistic’. They cannot see their baby and its environment properly, something that is not considered to be a problem. Now instead of an inability to see, replace it with social difficulties. Both of those sentences are discrimination but the ones that instead highlight social needs or mental health are those that are put in front of courts as justification to obtain care, placement and adoption orders.

Such justifications are unfortunately highly successful. Social workers are routinely allowed to forcibly remove even babies from families whose parents either have a form of autism or a mental health condition. I used the word ‘babies’ deliberately because under-fives are especially (and one could say cynically) targeted due to being easy to place.

When it’s someone who is in a wheelchair or physically disabled where evidence of their disability can be seen this would cause uproar by human rights protesters. They would be storming into the courts demanding fairness. As I’ve illustrated above, I have used a blind couple as an example of something that isn’t readily discriminated against in those kinds of settings.

Then I’ve replaced those terms with reasons that are regularly used within family courts to remove the babies and young children of those with mentally invisible conditions.

Those of us that fight back against that blatant discrimination are denied contact after our children are placed for adoption against our wishes due to a court signature. All contact, not even the very limited letterbox-only form.

If the evidence submitted into those court hearings wasn’t twisted to ensure that the parents lose their children then it would be at least fair.

I did make mistakes after my son was born but I was bullied by the child services to make me fail. I only lost my patience with them and said the wrong thing because of the constant pressure that was put on me. The people who comprise this system didn’t listen to me when I visited the GP and had a meeting with the child protection manager.

Instead, they had a pre-birth psychological assessment listing in detail exactly what they needed to do in order to achieve those ends. Deliberate and contrived things that would cause me to fail as a parent.

They did all the things on that list.

I should have been told about the malicious reports to child protection as soon as they started during my pregnancy. That is how I got an initial visit when I was six months pregnant. I had just assumed that the midwife had referred me due to procedure.

That was then. I’m now denied a life with my son. He is growing up with strangers, so if I don’t feel like celebrating Christmas it’s not like it’s for no reason. He’s spending his Christmas with strangers who he now sees as his parents. I have been completely shut out against my wishes and any measure of justice or fairness.

I won’t “do” Christmas unless he ever finds his way back into my life, maybe by coming to find me, or even just letterbox contact agreement would be better than nothing.