JACINDA HOFSTETTOR SOCIAL WORKER

Social Work England Coach for International Social Workers and Students can you please tell me why JACINTA HOFSTETTER

is still allowed to practice and has not been barred from working with children via a dbs check given her history gscc now defunt now and link been removed but im sure a judge can request the paperwork

jacinta Hofstetter caused distress and anxiety to a child and placed other children at unnecessary risk of harm. Brent

Do You Trust Social Workers ? Take a look at this lot !

ASHLEY ARKLESS THE THEIF steals money from 1 year old

Dear Ashley Arkless of staffordshire social services 

My daughter is still missing 40 pound last seen in your hands on 19th august 2011.

Father can verify this was a gift from him .

I have tried locating this cash through your corporate department to no avail it has just vanished .

There are many social workers being struck off of late for theft from clients and i think taking a 1 year old babies birthday money and never returning it is the lowest of the low hence why i have been forced to publicly name and shame you.

child stealing and john tradewell staffs child snatching crew gets a mention towards end

http://www.mixcloud.com/cmr/the-irate-womens-show-with-sarah-goodley-20092013/

Brenda Moult received £60,000 in 2001 for psychological damage suffered in a care home

Brenda Moult stops taking medication in protest at mental health services

By Michele PaduanoBBC Midlands health correspondent

Brenda Moult received £60,000 in 2001 for psychological damage suffered in a care home

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Woman awarded abuse damages

A woman has stopped taking life-saving medication in protest at a lack of support from mental health services.

Brenda Moult from Newcastle-under-Lyme needs insulin for her type 1 diabetes and Warfarin because she suffers from blood clots.

She claims there has been a lack of continuity of care by South Staffordshire and Shropshire Healthcare Foundation Trust.

The trust said it was working with Mrs Moult to resolve her concerns.

In 2001, Mrs Moult received £60,000 for sexual abuse and psychological damage suffered while in the care of Staffordshire Social Services.

For more than 20 years, she received continued mental health support.

But she alleges that for the past two years the trust, which should support her for the damage that her abuse caused, has failed to address her concerns.

‘Life at risk’

She said she had almost lost her home because she had no help dealing with her finances.

By not taking her medication Mrs Moult said she was putting her life at “immediate risk” because her blood would thicken, increasing the chance of blood clots in her heart or lungs.

“I don’t want to die. I just want some help and I want other people to get help,” she said.

“I think that if a complaint is made that it should be dealt with properly. People shouldn’t have to put their life at risk.”

South Staffordshire and Shropshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust has accepted in letters to Mrs Moult, seen by the BBC, that it has failed her.

Chief executive Neil Carr said he had met Mrs Moult to try to address her concerns.

He said: “Clinicians from the trust continue to support Mrs Moult and take her wellbeing very seriously.

“I am sorry if I have not allayed her concerns and we are dealing with this as is appropriate, through our normal complaints procedure.”

Nationally, the Care Quality Commission has demanded for improvements from community mental health providers after a survey of 1,300 patients showed a deterioration in services.

It showed that 46% of patients did not understand their care plan and 26% had not had a review of their care plan in the past year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-24149052

The video judges tried to block: Father secretly records harrowing moment six-hour-old baby is taken away by social services Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413319/Father-secretly-records-moment-hour-old-baby-taken-away-social-services.

• Seizure by Staffordshire social workers secretly recorded on webcam 
• Shows police and staff telling couple they have to take ‘baby J’ away 
  
• Film can be shown for first time after landmark ruling

By STEVE DOUGHTY, SOCIAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

PUBLISHED: 00:12, 6 September 2013 | UPDATED: 11:54, 6 September 2013

 

 

 

2,129 shares

48

View 
comments

 

This is the moment social services took a baby away from its parents when it was just six hours old.

The infant at the centre of the Munby judgment, known only as J, was removed from its parents after his birth in April.

The father secretly filmed the seizure on a webcam attached to the family computer. 

Scroll down video 

 

The six-hour-old baby is cradled by its father as a police officer stands close by in the secretly recorded video

 

 

The mother is clearly distraught in the video as Staffordshire social workers and police take the baby away

 

It has long been available on the internet but an edited version can only now be published and viewed legitimately.

The views of the father and mother of the four children taken into care by Staffordshire social workers can also now be published following yesterday’s landmark judgment by President of the Family Division Sir James Munby.

 

More…

• Top judge’s war on secret courts: Family hearings must be exposed to ‘glare of publicity’
• Health Secretary demands ‘urgent clarification’ of decision not to prosecute doctors who agreed to perform illegal abortions because of the babies’ sex

 

In June the baby’s father was given a suspended six-week prison sentence by a family court judge for his refusal to co-operate in getting the video removed from internet sites.

The parents said social workers removed their baby because they decided their mother was incapable of bringing them up because of her learning disability.

The video shows the father holding the newborn infant at their home when social workers and police come to take it away.

In the video, the mother is clearly distraught and holds onto her baby and rocks it as her husband remonstrates with officers and council staff. 

 

Harrowing. Six-hour-old baby taken away by social services

 

 

One social worker can be heard telling the parents: ‘We are going to take [baby J]. I don’t want to have to get physical.’

 

The mother can be heard wailing and screaming ‘no’ as social workers take her baby. 

The baby’s father told the Daily Mail: ‘I taped over the light on the webcam so the social workers couldn’t see it was switched on.’ 

The couple – who cannot be named – have lost four children who were removed by social workers. Three have now been adopted.

The father said yesterday they have never been accused of harming their children.

Cases in which children have been taken from families with learning difficulties have been acutely controversial over the last decade. 

Campaigners and some academics say over-zealous social workers have broken up families led by parents who are no threat to their children and who can look after them capably.

 

A version of the video can be published for the first time after Sir James Munby said the father could share it

 

 

One social worker can be heard saying: ‘We are here to take [baby J]. I don’t want to have to get physical’

 

The father told the Daily Mail: ‘The social workers said my wife and I were in a volatile relationship. But we have been married for a long time and we do bicker a bit. We have differences of opinion.

‘There has never been violence, and nobody has ever said there is any evidence to say otherwise.’

 

The father said his oldest daughter was seven years old when she was taken from her parents four years ago.

‘There were no problems for seven years,’ he said. ‘Then we had a new social worker who had a different attitude.

‘My wife has a learning disability and for a period I was depressed, although that was quickly over after the GP helped. But the social worker tried to section me. The court was told that there was a risk the children would come to harm in the future.

‘They were never harmed. They were taken away as a preventative or precautionary measure.’ 

Sir James rejected a sweeping injunction designed to effectively prevent anyone in the world from seeing the film, knowing the names of the social workers involved, or even discovering the name of the local authority that applied for the order, Staffordshire County Council.

 

The newborn baby can be heard crying during the distressing seizure

 

Sir James Munby said the baby’s father should not be prevented from sharing information about the case after Staffordshire Council tried to gag him

The father said that although social workers considered his wife disabled, the wife’s disability benefits were halted after intervention by Staffordshire council staff.

The parents, who do not work, were supported by family and by church food parcels for nearly nine months, he said, before state benefits to the wife were restored.

He said he acted as his wife’s carer.

The father, 41, had been married to the mother, 36, for 13 years.

The couple are permitted to see the eldest daughter six times a year under agreements settled in court, the father said. But he added: ‘We have only been allowed to see her once this year. She wants to come home.’

A test case in Essex in 2005 involved the parents of a four-year-old girl and a 14-month-old boy removed from their home even though they were clean, well-dressed, well fed, much loved, and had never been harmed. 

The case attracted attention because Essex social workers used court injunctions to prevent the parents from discussing their children or anyone from reporting the case.

A High Court judge backed the council and said it was unrealistic for the parents to expect to bring up their children.

Sir James Munby said of Staffordshire’s attempt to silence the parents in yesterday’s case: ‘The father wishes to share information with others. Why should he not be able to do so? 

‘And why should those who may wish to hear his views not be permitted to approach him? 

‘This is in effect, if not in intention, a means of indirectly gagging the father so that what from the local authority’s perspective are his unpalatable views are less likely to see the light of day.’

Sir James added: ‘I simply fail to see how naming the local authority, the social workers, the local authority’s legal representative or the children’s guardian, or even all of them, can in any realistic way be said to make it likely that J will be identified, even indirectly.

‘The risk is merely fanciful.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413319/Father-secretly-records-moment-hour-old-baby-taken-away-social-services.html#ixzz2e7TncFly 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The Mother of All Conspiracies Aimed At Our Children!!

There is presently a massive conspiracy designed to separate you from your children and give the government complete control over your children. To put it simply, Human, Health and Services (HHS)  and their state level emissary, Children Protective Services (CPS) are engaged in a conspiracy which will culminate in (1) the Agenda 21 designed breakdown of the family; (2) the eradication of any semblance of parental authority over children; and, (3) unbridled and unfettered access to seizing children from the home in unlimited quantities for whatever nefarious purposes which might dictate the volume of child seizures.

 

http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/08/17/the-mother-of-all-conspiracies-aimed-at-our-children/

 

 

The Plot Is International Begins with the UN

This program emanates from a partnership between various United Nations organizations and ICF, acting on behalf of HHS, CPS and Obamacare (i.e. The Affordable Health Care Act). The evidence in this article, along with the included links, will demonstrate that when Obamacare is fully operational, our families, specifically our children will be living in a Romanian type of a Ceausescu hellish nightmare.

Romanian dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, seized hundreds of thousands of children from stable families under the pretense that these children had disabilities which could only be treated by the government. In reality, this madman planned to use the seized children, raised in government orphanages, for military and state purposes. Three hundred thousand children were raised in these state run orphanages (Romanian encyclopedia.adoption.com). Had Ceausescu survived, the vast majority of these children would have been useless to him because there were functionally retarded due to severe neglect.

After reviewing HHS, CPS and UN documents I have no doubt that Obamacare has the same goals and intentions as Ceausescu. What is being presently reported in the alternative media is merely the tip of the iceberg with regard to HHS’ intentions toward the ultimate outcome of the children in this country. After reviewing the documents, there is no doubt that Obama is representing international interests which will seek to remove as many children as possible from the homes of their parents in the spirit of Ceausescu. I freely admit that what I am about to reveal here has made me lose sleep and for the first time contemplate the real possibility of a revolution against the bankers who have hijacked our government. I cannot see parents submitting to this tyranny without a fight.

But first let me quickly review the recent revelations of the HHS/CPS/Obamacare intention to conduct what I have dubbed as “home invasion interventions.”

Obamacare Home Invasions and Interventions

According to a previously unreported Obamacare regulation, that has managed to escape “scrutiny” from the mainstream media, millions of American families will be targeted for home invasion by the forces of the Federal government in the name of preventing parental neglect resulting in disabilities in their children. And the Fourth Amendment be damned, after January 1, 2014, Federal officials may enter your home without a warrant in order to “intervene” for the purpose of saving “high risk” children. 

Obamacare’s Definition of High Risk

The exposure of the extreme and intrusive nature of Obamacare through home invasion visits is finally seeing the light of day in the alternative media. However, this exposure is grossly understated. As a starting point, I will briefly review what is making the rounds in the alternative media. According to Human Health Services, your family is eligible for this Soviet style for “intervention” in the following situations:

1. Families where mom is not yet 21.

2. Families where someone is a tobacco user.

3. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.

4. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. 

5. Although this is not being widely reported, homeschoolers and their families will be targeted for “interventions” as will be families who object to having their children take vaccines.  

There is no question that all of the above categories, will warrant a home invasion followed by “remediation.”  The visits will not be conducted by HHS officials as has been reported in several publications. The home invasion visits will be conducted by CPS on behalf of HHS.

HHS has designed a detailed 110 page policy manual which focuses on the criteria constituting child neglect. This policy manual which is the guide created by HHS for CPS’ home intervention visits makes the above criteria, presently being reported in the alternative media, look tame by comparison.

HHS, CPS and the Criminalization of Parenthood 

In the 110 page HHS/CPS manual, the variables which comprise child neglect, worthy of government intervention is frightening beyond any words I can find to express their undisguised intentions. This entire document which will serve as the field manual by CPS in support of Obamacare undermines parental authority to a level that is beyond belief.

“We are from HHS and we are here to help you.”

How many of you were ever grounded by your parents and not permitted to play outside with your friends? This is now illegal under the HHS/CPS policy manual. They label the treatment as neglect by isolation. There are not time frames set forth which constitutes isolation and it is left to the field representative. This obviously erodes parental discipline.

If your child is judged to be underachieving in school, this is referred to as educational neglect and is worthy of governmental intervention. Further, if your child is absent for five days in any one month from school, the same allegation would be made against the parent.

If your child has ADD or ADHD, you could be accused of neglect because the document details how this can be somehow caused by poor nutrition, although the variables associated with the cause are not specified.

The document goes out of its way to specify that poverty and neglect are not inextricably linked. Then the document goes out of its way to link poverty with child neglect. Read between the lines America. As we already are aware, many poor children who go missing from scandals such as the Second Mile Foundation, the Franklin Scandal and the latest scandal with the 78 missing wards of the state in Oklahoma, frequently end up being put into child sex trafficking rings operated and funded by such notables as DynCorps and HSBC bank.

Of course, no Obama inspired program would be complete without an attack upon the Second Amendment. Obamacare is no exception as one of the criteria for child neglect  are parents who are also gun owners.    

The presence of alcohol in the home is a trigger for an allegation of neglect and subsequent “intervention.” Of course, alcoholic parents can present a clear and present danger to a child’s well-being. However, in the policy manual the conditions for concern over alcohol do not detail the amount and percentage of the family resources involved necessary to obtain alcohol. In other words, one can of beer in the home can be considered to constitute child neglect by the Obamacare CPS fieldworker.

If your child has engages in any type of illicit or criminal behavior, your family is at risk. Raise your hands if you ever smoked pot before the age of 18, or drank as a teen, or engaged in any kind of sexual activity before the age of 18, ever stayed out past curfew, or ever shoplifted? IF your children ever engages in these and a multitude of other transgressions, you are in danger of losing your children. This also means that if your child is ever involved in a fight in school or is assigned detention, the school will be required to report the behavior to the HHS/CPS and you can expect to have a “home invasion intervention” session with your friendly Obamacare CPS fieldworker.

If you are ever late picking up your child from daycare or from school aftercare, you will be reported.

If you have ever been depressed or have been treated for any mental disorder (e.g. PTSD, anxiety, etc.), you are at risk for losing your children.

Even illegal immigrant families are not immune from this insanity. Children are judged by the field worker to not be fully acculturated, do not properly speak the language, exhibits signs of being homesick and is judged to have not formed an unspecified number of friends and formed a cohesive social network, allegations of neglect can be made.

I could literally write 10 more pages on what CPS/HHS, on behalf of Obamacare, considers to be parental neglect. I would invite the reader to spend some time reviewing the documentwhich will be serving as the policy manual for the forced home inspections. Please note that when the reader gets beyond the flowery language and professed concern for children, that the language is written so broadly that virtually any human condition, any family circumstance or child’s behavior can be interpreted as child neglect.

The important thing to note is the use of language by this manual. Parents who are deemed by an Obamacare CPS field worker, operating under the HHS flag, to be neglectful towards their children are considered to have created “disabilities” within their children. As the reader will soon discover, the use of the term “disabilities” is key to understanding how far this administration is willing to go to seize children for some nefarious purpose.

Sadly, this is still only the beginning. There is far more to be concerned about beginning with who is ultimately responsible for these outrages.

Meet the Creators of the State Sponsored Child Kidnapping Rings

The primary author for this insane manual for HHS/CPS and their designed home invasion interventions is Diane DePanfilis, Ph.D., M.S.W.  She is the Associate Dean for. Research and an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of Maryland.  More importantly she is a co-editor of the Handbook on Child Protection Practice. In other words, DePanfills has been a major player in the unconstitutional practices we see in CPS in all 50 states. As if this is not concerning enough, all of the other contributing authors have their professional origins and affiliations with the same organization.

Lindsay Ritter Taylor      from Caliber, an  ICF  International Company

Matthew Shuman, M.S.W,  A consultant with Caliber, an ICF International Company

Jean  Strohl,  A consultant with Caliber, an ICF International Company,

Jeannie Newman, M.S.W,  M.I.B.S.,  A consultant with Caliber, an ICF International Company

It was at this point, I smelled a rat. We have the primary author being a CPS author designed to teach their field operatives on the methods of how to abuse parents and undermine parental authority. And all of the contributing authors come from the exact same corporation, ICF. At this point, it is prudent to ask the question, who is ICF?

ICF Is the Biggest Player That You Have Never Heard Of

ICF International partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in climate change, energy, environment, transportation,social programs, defense, and homeland security markets. In my mind, this established ICF as a major player in the introduction and implementation of the globalist agenda by designing matching Federal programs. And as it turned out they are a major player in Obamacare through their subsidiary acquisition, Caliber Associates.

Caliber is an “established leader in providing research, consulting, and innovation in human services and human resource issues.” ICF acquired Caliber in 2005 in order “to serve HHS, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Department of Education.”  Caliber Associates and their four contributing authors to the HHS/CPS field manual, which will be used to enforce child welfare regulations, was the undeniable link to Obamacare through this field manual. But as I discovered, the rabbit hole went even deeper.

After I found the co-authors of the HHS/CPS policy manual which will guide these forced home inspections, I smelled the distinct odor of the United Nations and Agenda 21 and sure enough, this was exactly what I found.

The United Nations and Obamacare

At times, I feel that I have the globalist playbook and I am able to often anticipate their next move. Please allow me to briefly illustrate how the globalists have operated in another area, education, and then draw the parallel to how the UN is deeply involved in Obamacare.

The Common Core Curriculum, which is sweeping the nation’s education system, was the product of “Education for All.”  Education for All comes from the United Nations education arm, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Common Core went from UNESCO to the National Governors Association who in turn farmed out the development of the details to various NGO’s which in turn sent the standards to each state for implementation. This is the standard model that the globalists follow when implementing a controversial program and Obamacare follows a similar pattern as did Common Core.

There is no doubt that the provisions of allegedly protecting children in Obamacare, originated with the United Nations

Why do they want our kids?

In the United Nations document entitled, Human Rights, Persons with Disabilities, ICF and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Training toolkit),implementation for programs designed to help people, children in particular, with disabilities, came from the World Health Organization (WHO) [Page  36], UNESCO [Page 37], the International Labour Organization (ILO) [Page 36] and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)[Page 38]. As one can see from the title, ICF and the UN have partnered to protect people/children with disabilities.

Conclusion

Please remember that earlier in the article, I made the point that the HHS/CPS field manual referred to neglected children as children who have disabilities. It is quite apparent that any of the conditions listed in the HHS/CPS manual will produce children who have disabilities. And in the case of Ceausescu, in which he seized hundreds of thousands of children who had “disabilities” and planned to use them for purposes of the state, the same picture is beginning to emerge with regard to Obamacare and the home invasion visits. I can draw no other conclusion than Obamacare is state sponsored child slavery.

Under Obamacare, virtually every aspect of parenting is criminalized. Any child can be considered to have a disability for which the state is the only legitimate treatment source. When Obama was first running for President in 2008, he promised to build a civilian security force that “was just as strong, just as well-funded as our military.” And when one combines this conspiracy with Obama’s Executive Order 13603 which calls for a mandatory civilian conscription to complement a coming military draft, it is clear that this lunatic is planning to enslave a large segment of the population and he will obtain many of his conscripts from Obamacare. And many of you who are familiar with Agenda 21 and their expressed views toward parental rights and the rights of children, do not need me to make connect the dots, you already have done so.

My advice to all parents, don’t answer the door on New Year’s Day on 2014 when Obamacare begins to be implemented. 

I cannot see any way out of this dilemma than to resist through the use of force. The Obamacare goons will NOT gain entry into my home while I am still breathing. I predict that HHS/CPS will soon be armed because they will, and should, meet massive resistance from the citizens.

 

America, we must resist this heinous tyranny with every means at our disposal.

 

Some will undoubtedly say that violence is not the answer and I have agreed with that sentiment in every case, until now.

However, I will fight to defend to my family. Will you?

nic hull , jane bray , mark tustin , charlotte coxon , karen shulp . ashley arkless. tracey challinor

any chance of letting me know where my daughters missing money , 100 plus pound bracelet is , her memory boxes and journal , plus photos in jane brays drawer and calender of her mum , or do i have to come and take her things back myself like i did monday ? THIEVES 

Loving Parents Despair –

Two parents – filmed anonymously out of fear of the Social Services – share their emotional abuse and torture at the hands of the UK state. When the SS told them that their third child would be taken away at birth, they made the heart-crushing decision to have a termination rather than face again what they had seen their other two children endure…..they know that they are not the only ones to have suffered this horror…..our hearts go out to anyone who has faced, or is facing, that situation. We urge everybody to start working together against these atrocities.

 http://youtu.be/zSaNKmJEx78

I apologise for my being away x

I have had so much trouble trying to get internet connection after i moved home but eventually succeeded now im back and will update you on matters once again . My son has yet again had another foster placement since his last move thanks to Marian Richards et al but more evidence for his lawsuit that i am acting as litigant friend for on his behalf x

Marian Richards social services manager

not only responsible for the kidnap of baby willow but also responsible for 2 assaults against my child in foster care then keeping it secret , corrupting complaints , and trying to deny me records for 2 years thankfully now Farleys solicitors are on to her!

UK SOCIAL WORKERS EXPOSED

Gaynor and Ed staffordshire Local authority Foster Parents

My son was placed with these until last year, I received a letter from social services informing me he had moved they failed to inform me it was because GAYNOR tried to strangle him !!!

You will find on this blog evidence of assault by a previous foster carer on my child .

 

further questions

1) What evidence was in your medical notes to support that you did have this medical condition ?

2) Did the experts make the following excuses up .
a) The notes did not arrive in any order
b) Some notes did not arrive ,or arrived on the same day the parent was due for an appointment meaning this, they never read the medical bundles, and this is something the GMC can give a warning to them for writing reports on this, or writing reports about people who they have not seen.
c) What legal offered to paginate the notes for the court or interested parities?
Was it the child’s solicitor offered, if so , this is a conflict of interest , to seek a fishing trip to label a parent for a personality disorder.
3)
Since losing your court case, have you had any recent medical assessments with ATOS , and if so how did they award you on the medical evidence based with the GP , hospitals etc?
4) Did you get awarded
a) Did Atos find you fit for work?
b) Did Atos next put into the support group ?
c) Did they award you the highest rate of ESA?

4) How has being essentially labelled within a Kangeroo court , with a personality disorder affected you , in your day to day living ?
5) Have you ever been offered counselling by your GP for having suffered from being essentially victimized by being Psychiatrically abused by these so called experts.
6) How many of your experts did you back track later on and search for more answers or more cases of others who have had a similar experience as yourself?
7) Is blogging something you would like to consider , as if you were to do this, it would connect you to more cases in connection with the same professionals who were involved in your case.
What help do you think , that you would need to deal with the media,as the media are similarly interested in these cases,and also asking more questions about the closed courts , as only a selective group are allowed

9) Would you be interested in trying to report such cases with a reputable journalist, or learn to organized how to merchandize the paperwork and move it around the internet, to legally share it with other parents and media to train them up, to be able to deal with the endemic amount of corruption , ordinary families are finding themselves up against or subjected to ?

Submitted by a colleague

I have another question, which I want you to post on your blog please.
1)
How many of you , have been accused in court of not having a medical problem , or suffering from an incurable disease,which resulted in losing your children?
2) Did you feel that your data was given to an an un-trained expert to interpret as they seen fit , to relay to a Judge in a report for court ?
3) How many of you were labelled with the following and in the following order a) Stomaotise disorder ? ( could not get this to stick, so then went to abnormal illness behavoiur
b( factious illness or another label
4) How many of you were recently or in receipt of benefits for disability for this problem when they removed your children,and how did it affect your benefit ? (this is in relation to your claim at the time, or now.

5) What has Atos or DWP awarded you in rates of benefits for any medical problem , which essentially you feel that the closed courts have re- classified via a report done by an expert who works for the NHS or in Private?
6) How has this affected you financially or Psychologically ?
7) How has this impacted on your general health since the experience of being labelled or having been falsely accused of having something , that never existed on record prior to visiting an expert witness?
Do you feel that , a social worker ,should have reported the change of circumstances to the police , or DWP as a matter of fraud ? ( as this is what it is, basically , this is a fraud matter. Someone has accused you of being a fraud,when in fact ,you have documented evidence in your medical bundles to support this is not the case, yet no fair opportunity to have this represented by any decent solicitor in a closed court?
9) How many people would want , to lobby MP’s to change this process for court expert witnesses to stick to pathology testing, and also to have Genetic screening mandatory as hard evidence ,instead of inserting subjective opinions about your medical history?

These questions have been raised by a parent ,who was accused of having Stomatoise disorder, who has a long term history of incurable disease , and lost their case in a closed court,because of an expert witness stepped out of their field of expertise and did not have the basic knowledge of what they were reading in the patients medical notes.
This parent was diagnosed in 1986 by various medical doctors,standard NHS procedures were sued to make the diagnosis. The DWP has sent the person to a medical, were Atso has asked when they had their first diagnosis and what is the current state of the disease?
Based on evidence supplied by regular visits to hospitals and findings, Atos decided to award the highest rate of benefit to the parent,who has life was destroyed by an expert who was paid £150 an hour plus VAT in 2005
A FOI requests how many parents lost such cases ,then went on to be awarded the highest rate of benefit

New Years Honours List; class structures the elite and betterness

New Year Message

To campaigners, activists, hactivists , anononymous 

Your humanity and bravery through hardships is so inspiring I feel your pain yet you still have humanity.

We will keep fighting until it stops .

To the children, We are always thinking about you and fighting for you , always know this and one day we will be reunited.

To the family court my message to you is simple.

2013 EXPECT US !

Messages Of Hope To Stolen Children

Posted by tammy samede on 31/12/12

 

A group has been setup on Facebook  for people that have lost their children to the state ‘care’ system, wrongly, to send their children a message attached to a balloon. Also survivors of child abuse to send a message out, we want to be a voice for children, and let them know they are not forgotten. It is a free service, once a message is on the wall of the group, it will be hand written onto a label, and attached to helium balloons, and launched tonight midnight, Trafalgar sq. there is still time, to join in, labels will be attached at 9 pm  And for Eco friendlies, we are going green, from the next event, many are planned, this time, this is what we had to go with, but a brilliant team are determined to facilitate many events this year.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/139381952885644/

2012 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 25,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 6 Film Festivals

Click here to see the complete report.

Denise Robertson Agony Aunt This Morning at Forced Adoption Conference

Christopher Booker Telegraph BIrmingham Conference

Ian Joesphs Stop Forced Adoption

Brandan Fleming Birmingham Conference On Child Stealing by The State

ss are nazis

Why are abusers allowed to raise children ?

I would like to ask staffordshire county council why i had my children removed for being a victim / survivor of sexual, physical and emotional abuse yet my abusers who live in staffordshire are allowed to raise their children ?

Dear Parents and Extended Families

I would like to do some research on diagnosis given in Family Courts and the experts and methods in which diagnosis were made.

I would like to know

The diagnosis you were given.

1. Did you have a diagnosis prior to court proceedings ?

2. The expert used to give you a diagnosis in Family Court proceedings.

3.The method used in which you received diagnosis , i.e psychometric testing , interviews etc

4. Whether the diagnosis meant you then lost custody of your children.

5. Whether you were offered any treatment or therapy for the said diagnosis.

6. Whether as a result of the diagnosis you are now in receipt of any sickness benefits or DLA that you were not entitled to prior to family courts.

&. The local authority involved .

The easiest way to submit this is via the comments section below .

Please comment as anonymous or under a false name this is to protect you .

Thank You

CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE !

http://www.lulu.com/shop/hlrippingale-srippingale/surviving-social-services/paperback/product-20554657.html?mid=social_facebook_pubsharefb

How law fails victims of foster parent abuse

VICTORIA MACDONALDHealth and Social Care Correspondent

A solicitor is planning to challenge the law so that local authorities are made responsible for abuse carried out by foster parents on children in their care, writes Victoria Macdonald.

For seven years Emma (not her real name) was abused on an almost daily basis. The abuse was not by a relative or a stranger but by her foster father – the very person who was meant to be keeping her safe.

Emma has now left foster care and is married but earlier this year she tried to commit suicide, such is her continuing despair at what she had to endure. She toldChannel 4 News: “I am still in counselling, going through therapy. I have still to go to the crisis team involved. I still have my down days.”

She said: “When I was 11, the dad started being a bit touchy feely and it got worse from that. It wasn’t until I was 13 that his son started joining in on it. And that carried on till I was 18.”

I still have my down days.Emma (not her real name) who was abused by her foster father

Emma was seriously let down by the adults who had been entrusted with her care. But what Channel 4 News has discovered is that nobody knows how many children in foster care are abused, nor are details of what happens to the children, or the perpetrators, recorded or collated.

Unanswered questions

Ofsted collates figures on the number of allegations of misconduct made each year and how many referrals are made to the independent safeguarding authority. But that leaves many questions unanswered.

We have also learned that because of a gaping hole in the legislation, local authorities cannot always be held legally responsible for that abuse, even though they are the ones who placed the child in foster care in the first place. Yet if children are placed in residential care and abused, the local authority is considered legally liable.

Now a solicitor is planning to challenge this law by bringing a case that he hopes will prove a local authority’s “vicarious liability” for damage done to children in foster care. It is similar to legal cases brought against the Catholic church, where people alleging historic abuse by a deceased priest have claimed that the church itself should be responsible because they were effectively the employers.

Proving negligence

Local authorities can be held responsible if negligence is proved, but that is notoriously difficult in abuse cases. The solicitor David Greenwood says that if it can be proved – and he has high hopes – then that means, first, children will be able to sue for compensation and, secondly, it will improve safeguarding because the authorities will have to improve their levels of supervision.

Cases like these will also be helped if the collection of the most basic data can be improved. Our own freedom of information requests resulted in detailed responses from only 23 UK local authorities. But these showed 53 per cent were for physical abuse, 18 per cent for neglect, and 10 per cent for sexual abuse.

A total of 57 authorities responded in total. Of these responses, around one in five of the allegations was upheld.

Questions to answer

Now the NSPCC has commissioned Professor Nina Biehal, from the University of York’s Social Policy Research Unit, to investigate further. Professor Biehal said among the questions that needed answering are whether it was emotional abuse, neglect, physical or sexual.

“People have long been aware of the problem of allegations against foster carers, many of which prove to be unfounded. But there has been very little attention to how many do actually experience abuse and neglect in foster care.”

Currently, around 75 per cent of children in care are placed with foster parents, and the government wants to increase those numbers. It is also the case that foster care works well in many cases. The problem is that nobody really knows how often it is going wrong.

And in response to our findings, the government said: “We are working with local authorities, independent fostering services and foster carers to improve the way allegations are handled and address issues around support for foster families, the timeliness of investigations and the threshold for removing children from the foster home.”

Article Tags

Victoria Macdonald

More on this story

• 

  Foster care crisis looming

  20 December 2011

http://www.channel4.com/news/how-the-law-is-failing-victims-of-foster-parent-abuse

After nearly 7 years of hell at the hands of this local authority

They are now being sued never ever give up x

EXPECT ME !

Karen Schulp, Mark Tustin , Charlotte Coxon , Jane Bray and Nic Hull FAIL to follow court orders even after admitting to this lot

Hi

Please see list below from Michelle, of the LA failures that you requested from her.

Helen

Helen Jarvis

Sent for and on behalf of Nigel Priestley

Ridley & Hall Solicitors

helen.jarvis@ridleyandhall.co.uk

01484 538421

§  No multi agency approach ( working together, nice guidelines, )

§  No effort to co-ordinate with other children’s sw

§  No proper assessments (no core assessment)

§  No identification of family needs

§  No risk ass

§  No initial involvement with MHT

§  No meeting with sol , m and ss as recommended in the initial CPC

§  No working agreement

§  Refusal to provide respite

§  No increased nursery  provision

§  Inadequate communication between the agencies

§  No provision of therapy , Dr D suggested she was ready to undertake it

§  No consideration of other recommendations ,eg LA taking a different approach

§  Not following recommendations of chair

For and behalf of Ridley & Hall Solicitors

Queens House, 35 Market Street, Huddersfield, HD1 2HL

Telephone: 01484 538421  Dx Number 710083 Huddersfield 8

stafford social worker tooled up with machete

Man jailed after arming himself with machete

 

 

A CHILDREN’S social worker ‘tooled up’ with a machete started a violent brawl that left two people injured, a judge heard.

 Leroy Forde turned up at a house in Stafford with the machete and a golf club after being accused of an extra-marital affair.

 Householder Mr Darren Chevelleau (corr) opened the door to see Forde holding the machete and fearing he was about to be attacked, made a grab for it.

 The fracas that followed spilled over from the house in Friars Street to a nearby car park. Mr Chevelleau suffered a cut to his fingers that needed four stitches and his partner, Mandy Ormrod sustained cuts to her left wrist and knee.

 The defendant ran off when he heard the sound of police sirens and was arrested,covered in blood, at his home, said Miss Fiona Cortese, prosecuting.

 Forde, aged 33, of Alliance Street, Stafford, who admitted charges of unlawful wounding, possessing the machete and common assault on Ms Ormrod, was jailed for a total of 397 days.

 Judge Mark Eades told him: “During the course of the day there was an incident which appears to have involved your wife being told – whether correct or not I can’t comment – you were having an affair with another woman and you were under the impression your marriage was over.

 “Your reaction was an extreme one. I put to one side the fact you had donned camouflage outfit… you armed yourself with a machete, a long large weapons more consistent with a short sword and a golf club. The fact you were prepared to travel to Mr Chevelleau’s house with those two weapons speaks volumes.

 “The inevitable happened, things escalated and went completely out of control – the people in the house sought to restrain you and take those weapons off you. You ended up injured and they were injured.”

 Miss Cortese said the incident happened after Forde had been out celebrating the New Year in Stafford town centre.

 The defendant, who had been drinking heavily, went home and put on camouflage clothes to walk his dog, but then armed himself with the machete and golf club and went to Friars Street.

 In a basis of plea, Forde said he had no intention to use the weapons, but took them ‘for protection’. He didn’t have a problem with Mr Chevelleau, only wanting to talk about the allegations made about him.

 Mr Chris Clark, defending, said Forde had held a responsible job “working with vulnerable children for social services.”

 He was suspended in the wake of the incident. “That employment is no longer available to him,” said Mr Clark.

 “His wife is standing by him and they are attempting to make a new start. My client has made a valuable contribution to the community since coming to this country from Barbados. By these rash actions he’s put it wholly in jeopardy.”

Stafford children’s social worker jailed for machete attack

 

September 24, 2012 4:59 pm

 

A children’s social worker “tooled up” with a machete started a violent brawl that left two people injured, a judge heard.

 

 

Leroy Forde turned up at a house in Stafford with the machete and a golf club after being accused of an affair.

Householder Mr Darren Chevelleau opened the door to see Forde holding the machete and fearing he was about to be attacked, made a grab for it.

The fracas spilled from the house in Friars Street to a nearby car park. Mr Chevelleau suffered a cut to his fingers that needed stitches and his partner Mandy Ormrod sustained cuts to her left wrist and knee.

The defendant ran off when he heard police sirens and was arrested,covered in blood, at his home, said Miss Fiona Cortese, prosecuting.

Forde, aged 33, of Alliance Street, Stafford, admitted charges of unlawful wounding, possessing the machete and common assault on Ms Ormrod. He was jailed for a total of 397 days.

Mr Chris Clark, defending, said Forde had held a responsible job “working with vulnerable children for social services.” He was suspended after the incident.

http://www.expressandstar.com/

17 years of hell at the hands of social servies Part 1

17 years of hell at the hands of social servies Part 1

My story is in three parts, two of my daughter and one part of my grandson and is a continual catalogue of failing after failing by social workers from Greenwich Hospital, Kent County Council, Cornwall Social Services, Bournemouth Social Services and Dorset County Council.

It all began in 1994 when my now ex wife decided to stab me in the wrist with a pair of hairdressing scissors, I went into hiding in South London as I was in shock for some considerable time when my ex turned up waving a pregnancy certificate some months later having persuaded my mother to divulge my address.

Becky was nearly full term and her behaviour had not changed, it was still erratic, unstable, violent and I enlisted the help of Greenwich Hospital social services who I was advised was a really good step to take…

Famous last words sadly.

Becky has a severe personality disorder, she is one of three in her family with paranoid schizophrenia and she was ever so clever at playing the victim and she is very plausible, this is mentioned many times in the court records that whenever a new worker arrived on the case, she would do her little child lost victim routine and I may as well have been Charles Manson, Saddam Hussein and the Devil incarnate rolled into one.

The hospital social worker from Zimbabwe or somewhere like that could hardly speak English and she was very indoctrinated and launched straight away at me pinning the blame wholly on my shoulders for the violence in the family, Becky was very violent towards me over many years that has left me with 18 stab wound scars, broken bones and is partially blamed too for my severe PTSD.

Needless to say at that early stage, I became a target and continued to be until after Siana was born.

We moved out of South London to Gravesend into a hostel for families and the erratic behaviour and violence continued, quite publicly as well, our case was transferred to a Monica Dahl who like her predecessor could find no fault with the ex but every thing I did including breathing was wrong, it was during this time that Siana started to have “little” accidents and bruising, Monica ignored my pleas for help and said the mother was no risk.

We were thrown out of the hostel when my ex beat up two of the resident single mothers and the hostel’s manageress, we moved from property to property until the whole town was on the point of lynching her and we moved to Cornwall, partially to escape Monica.

The stress was getting to me and on Christmas day 1995 two undetected ulcers split and became one big tear in my stomach lining and I became critically ill, despite my own needs I discharged myself after asking the doctor to give me a special drug from a huge needle directly in the stomach which seals ulcers, I could not leave my daughter in the care of the mother hence why I left hospital but I was incredibly weak from blood loss and before the year was out I developed double pneumonia, I do not to this day know how I survived as I was dying but it was Siana that kept me alive I am sure of this.

Gravesend social services, the manager of Monica became suspicious of Becky’s continual accusations as did Kent police when a surgeon asked her why if I had “beaten her to a pulp” she had not a mark on her body, Becky found a place in Cornwall for us to live in and we moved down soon after, I was weak as a kitten for many months afterwards and unable to think straight as all the time I was focusing on keeping Siana alive.

In Cornwall (1996) Becky’s behaviour actually got worse, the landlord lived below us in the flat and she smashed the flat up in a fit of fury whilst I was out at the shops with Siana.

The police were called and a social worker called Sue Hogshaw turned up, Sue was the epitome of the worst kind of social worker, two faced, I found out after she had left Birmingham Social Services leaving a string of serious upheld complaints against her, I was actually out at the time of Becky losing it and the landlord agreed and said this as well but suddenly I got the blame and I was forced off my own property by the police, placed in a B&B overnight and then told the next day to be out of Cornwall or we will have you inside, I was forced to abandon my baby daughter under duress and I fled the county to my mum’s in Bournemouth.

Becky denied her usual target began to abuse Siana physically, the landlord continually called the police and social worker to say she is screaming at that child again and apparently it was so loud that it could be heard very clearly on the phone which prompted the police to turn up with concerns.

The social worker still would do nothing until Siana ended up in hospital, Siana who was learning to walk when I left, according to Becky, stood up on her own, walked across the front room floor, grabbed the lit gas fire and wrenched it off the wall pulling its security chain from the brickwork, Siana had three very deep burns on her leg from the red hot grille of the fire, social services accepted Becky’s versions of events as an “accident” but they were put into a foster family placement and Siana was put on the risk register, she was placed on the risk register as being at risk from me whilst I was 150 miles away and not allowed to see my child.

Becky attacked and severely assaulted several family members of the foster family and was moved to another, she did this again and Sue Hogshaw decided enough was enough and gave Becky 50 pounds, a travel warrant to London and Becky ceased to be a problem and this was all done without any consultantion with me.

The first I knew about it was when I was at my mums when a friend rang me urgently to tell me Siana had been seen in London sporting an enormous black eye down the side of her face, I rang Cornwall, Cornwall refused to tell me at first what was going on, I rang the director who did tell me that Becky had been returned to her parents, I rang Lewisham Social Services who denied any knowledge of Becky being there as Cornwall hadn’t told them, I told them about the black eye and later that day they confirmed yes she had an enormous bruise on her face, given to her by her uncle Jimmy who didn’t like her crying and punched her in the face but refused to do anything about it.

I spoke to my mum and we decided we had enough of this and through her contacts at Bournemouth University, we took on a lovely barrister cum solicitor called Kerry Taylor, we went to court with our concerns and Judge Bonvin gave me an ex parte hearing and a court order for the child to be placed in my care.

Lewisham refused to carry out the order and Becky turned up at my mothers looking for second chances and I took on the role again of Siana’s carer, we were moved into a bed and breakfast, where Becky became involved with a serious ring of paedophiles who lived next door and as we had social services involved I reported this and had confirmed to me they were all convicted paedophiles, Becky went on one over this as I told her she could not take Siana there and attacked the landlady and other residents, the next day she said she needed to speak to the social worker and she placed Siana in care for adoption and social services agreed to accept Siana and I again was not told this until AFTER it had happened.

Needless to say I was not tolerating this, Kerry Taylor and I launched a blistering court action and we had a Judge McKinney who agreed with us that Siana should live with me, Judge Bond and Judge Meston also agreed during this first action when McKinney wasn’t available, social services lost heavily and still refused to obey the order, the worker Julian Vernon said simply, we don’t do single fathers of daughters but McKinney was having none of this and she made an order that Siana be returned to me, that we be housed in emergency accomodation and a council flat found, that any contact with mother was to be restricted and observed and failure of return of Siana to me she said to the social worker that he can choose to go to prison instead for contempt.

By this time I had two years of hell from failure of social services, I was very much the enemy yet I had done nothing wrong except want to make sure Siana had a good loving home and upbringing but the worst was yet to come.

Becky continued her relationships with the paedophiles and kept bringing them round to the front of my flats block seeking to come in, I told her that they could not come in and basically bid them to get lost, one day she was out there shouting at me with her friends in tow when the social worker Julian Vernon turns up.

He came in and said my flat was untidy but he was concerned that I was allowing paedophiles into my property, I said to him that not one of them would cross my threshold and that other neighbours saw them in the block, they would likely get their heads kicked in as I had told them all about some of their doings and the neighbours were 110% behind me.

Social worker wanders off, next day turns up again to tell me that he was taking Siana into care because I was exposing her to paedophiles and that my care of her was neglectful. He had obviously been waiting his opportunity and done a lot of work in the background as he presented me with an EPO and Siana was taken from me to a foster carers in Parkstone.

Becky had almost daily, sometimes many times a day made anonymous and not anonymous malicious calls to social services, I was not told about this but it was this that Vernon used against me, he knew damned well that I would have no truck with the paedo friends of Becky and it was that which led to his undoing.

We had a SWA called Sindy Rowley who was brilliant, I must admit she was a pretty lady and had such a wonderful personality that outside of a professional relationship I could have become quite smitten and we did get on like a house on fire, the problem with Sindy was she was totally honest, she could not lie and would not lie and she was the weak link in Vernon’s chain, it was looking very bleak for us in court with social services looking like adoption was going to happen when we put Sindy in the dock, within a very few minutes it was changing and Bournemouth were losing fast, Vernon had made a terminal mistake when Sindy refused to lie to back him up, he threatened her and she sat there and told my barrister Gary Self EVERYTHING!!!

We then put Vernon in the dock and he was torn to pieces alternately by my barrister and the Judge herself, oh she really had her teeth into him and you could see the look of disgust every time she addressed him and she was furious. We kept Vernon in the dock for three days and then it was the Guardians turn, the Guardian asked the Judge for a short adjournment, wrote a new report on her A4 pad, refuted everything she said and resigned herself from the case after stating Siana should be returned to me.

In her summing up, Judge McKinney made Vernon stand up, he was shaking like a leaf and she spent half an hour delivering such a condemnation at him that if words and looks could kill, he would be a terminal case there and then, Bournemouth were told to stop vicitimising me by her (Bournemouth ignored this) and that she read out a letter she was sending to the Director of Social Services in Bournemouth that was so withering that Vernon resigned that day before he could be sacked (He is at St Annes in Canford Cliffs now I believe), a plan was drawn up over six weeks to rehabilitate Siana with me, that I would attend family centre and Becky was to have contact supervised once a week at the family centre as well and McKinney said she would be checking and if Siana wasn’t back with me full time in six weeks then she would hold every officer responsible in contempt. Siana was back with me in two weeks.

We entered a period where Siana and I lived under siege from her mother, who would daily, sometimes many times a day come round to our flat in Cunningham Crescent and force her way into the flat to attack us both or scream abuse at us from outside, one time she forced her way in whilst we were at the family centre and I was advised of this and Siana and I went into hiding at a friends until Becky drank a bottle of bleach and tried torching the place, she destroyed every photo of my other daughter, my mum and Siana’s baby photos, our furniture was trashed, excreta daubed on the walls when we returned but we managed to get our first injunction BUT Becky was winning an argument for unsupervised contact with Siana with the new Judge.

From 1997 to 2000 we endured this until we took an exchange to Cornwall with the help of the ONLY good social worker Bournemouth applied to our case, Louisa Buckthorpe was brilliant and she left the service a year after we moved to Cornwall but we kept in touch for a while and she helped us with Cornwall Social services who found we were no problem, no hassle, all the previous social worker “concerns” were unfounded and for the first time Siana had actually been discharged from their beady eyes.

But not going too far ahead as Bodmin social services is still a fair way ahead in this tale, the social worker applied to us after Vernon was a Ginette Oubridge, who was the traditional sensible shoes, anti-family, anti-men and certainly anti-me was assigned to the case, Ginette knew it all and it was her that fell for Becky’s “poor little me” routine and forced an issue where Becky was to be given unsupervised contact at her home for the first time, I refused and Bournemouth pushed it to the point where they had cornered me so if I refused again despite my protestations, I would go to prison.

I had no choice but to capitulate, the police were unhappy and said so to the court (Alan Berry a great man and a beacon of hope in those times), the Judge wasn’t keen but was given all manner of undertakings by the ex, the injunction was relaxed to allow her to collect Siana and deliver her back and so she won this point.

It was during this time I met my third wife Tracy and Becky absolutely detested her, it has to be said that I have remained alone ever since because of what Becky put Tracy through and subsequently what Tracy put me and Siana through, I don’t blame her, I really don’t and neither does Siana considering what Becky cost her in pain and loss.

We had a period of bouncing back and forth to court for breached injunctions, Becky was allowed to meet me at the contact centre in the local church to pick up and drop off Siana but she was not allowed to approach the property. This ended with a quarter mile exclusion zone from my property, Siana or myself and Bournemouth police under this order were given the power to arrest and detain Becky if she was found within this quarter mile, it was ironic as the quarter mile as the crow flew perimeter was 10 up the road from where she lived and the police did regularly check to see if she turned left or right as turning right they would arrest her.

Becky was having assessment done at this time at Kinson family centre when she disclosed to the social worker Ginette Oubridge that Siana had cigarette burns on her buttocks and genitalia (I’m sorry for repeating this Siana but it was such a crucial thing at the time) Ginette Oubridge rushed from the office to the family centre and in the public area, in front of twenty people made up from staff and parents, took Siana’s nappy off, examined her first intimately in the rectal area and then equally intimately in the genital area and inserted her fingers into Siana’s privates stating that yes it was cigarette burns, the family centre staff tried to pull her off of Siana saying they were going to call the police but Oubridge wasn’t phased at all, she went back to the office leaving Siana in the care of the family centre, drew up an open EPO, grabbed Siana and forced me at the point of removal to take Siana to the paediatric centre in Poole where Siana was put onto stirrups and the doctor was instructed to examine Siana. Siana was found by the doctor to have three spots of nappy rash on her left buttock, they were very small pimples, I told the doctor that I had been told by the family centre that Oubridge had internally examined her and the Doctor immediately rang the director at Bournemouth to disclose the social workers criminal actions. Ginette Oubridge resigned immediately and Bournemouth refused to comply with a criminal investigation of indecent assault by the social worker, they simply refused to talk, admit or notify a thing and the courts could not get them to budge.

Social services were being very harsh towards me, the daily anonymous calls continued unabated.

We then in 1999 had a three month break of contact as Becky was really causing us problems then contact resumed and it was very lucky that Siana is alive.

The first contact Becky took Siana to Wallisdown but ended up spraining Siana’s ankle as Becky was chased by a gang of West Howe gypsies she had called the police on and made allegations of child abuse against one of the gypsy men.

The second contact Siana was taken to hospital as Becky had bought Siana a bike and left her unattended next to a steep set of concrete steps and a busy road whilst she went in to make a hour long phone call and only realised something was wrong when a neighbour called an ambulance for Siana who had fallen down some 40 concrete steps on her bike.

The third contact Siana was punched in the stomach by a neighbour trying to defend himself, his wife and his young son when Becky attacked Siana.

The fourth contact I was called to pick Siana up early outside the library where Becky had attacked my new wife, her two children, her friend and her two children, she smashed Tracy in the stomach causing her to miscarry our child she was carrying.

The fifth contact Becky refused to give Siana back.

Becky said that Siana had told her that I had whipped Siana mercilessly with a leather belt and used this as grounds as keeping her from returning home. he was examined by Poole paediatric service and no marks or traces of abuse were found and the police and doctor both submitted reports to the court that they believed Siana was being threatened to say these things.

Siana was returned to me in a dreadful state at court during the week as Becky absconded from the hospital with her and was finally found and taken to the court under arrest and she was given a suspended prison sentence for eight weeks by the Judge.

Siana when we were visitied by Louisa told her everything and the police and doctor were right on the money, Becky had forced Siana to make a disclosure as she was threatened with not only being killed but her mother was going to kill me too.

The next contact allowed saw half of Bournemouth police down Cunningham Crescent and Verney Lane because Becky had been given permission to take Siana to the beach, I said to Becky, you must put sunscreen on Siana or she will get sunburned and Becky flipped, in the end they arrested Becky and returned Siana to me as they could hear Siana’s screams.

This of course was beginning to wear my marriage and Tracy was beginning to crack as Becky put around a rumour that her eldest son Stephen who was eight at the time was a paedophile and Stephen was being beaten up at school, Tracy and I ended up having an argument which culminated when I overreacted and I thought Tracy had Siana by the throat, we were screaming at each other, Tracy punched me in the chest and I slapped her round the face to try and calm her down but I was so traumatised by losing my self control even though it was a slap that I handed myself into the police and Louisa arranged for me and Siana to have some respite in a B&B til things calmed down.

Contact against my wishes resumed with mother and Siana ended up in hospital with a very bruised face and eye, Becky claimed Siana locked herself in her bathroom and Becky caught her when she broke the door lock, this is partly the truth, Siana stated to the police that yes she did lock herself in but not by accident, Siana had seen a cat and her mother thought Siana called her a C*** and went berserk, Siana fled into the bathroom and locked the door, Becky kicked the door in and beat Siana very hard and then sought to play it down what happened, I of course went back to court and the Judge again gave her another chance.

The final contact happened and Becky refused to give Siana back, she took Siana to Poole hospital saying Siana had disclosed to her that Stephen had “fingered her bottom” on more than one occasion and Poole out of hours service were at a loss what to do, the police refused to take Siana back from Becky without help and I was asked to make a voluntary care request to ensure Siana could be accomodated and the police were duty bound to investigate these claims regardless of the fact that again they felt she was coached and coerced into making this allegation. Louisa also felt Tracy and I could do with a time out as well as it was devastating us and Tracy’s kids, Siana’s stepbrothers and Louisa said with her senior practioner that as a family we were in dire need of support because of Becky.

Siana returned three weeks later, as Tracy and I asked for an extra week to help settle the boys, the police had found no evidence to even suggest Stephen had done such a thing and that there was no physical evidence either and after interviewing Siana on video, again it came out that she had been heavily threatened if she did not make a disclosure against Stephen, however, Tracy was less forgiving and she never forgave Siana this even though it was Becky’s doing not Siana’s.

We decided that it was time to get out of the flat and with Louisa’s help we found an exchange in Cornwall, Louisa and other professionals all entered into the “lie” we were moving to Norfolk and Becky went and found herself a place there, we went to Bodmin instead and for the first time we did have some peace.

grandmothers heartache

Well my grandkids were taking in to care on the 19th of nov 2010 and are now in long term foster care as they were put up for adoption but the judge put a 6months deadline which thet were unable to do .How it all started was my son had finished with his ex but it took us 15long months to get her to leave the house socail services came in to our lives because his oldest child went in to school upset and told the teacher his mum hurts him which was true and we had spoke to socail services about it and they would say it was a acident the final straw was when she pushed him of the chair and banged his head on the floor my son called the police it took them awhile to come so when they came they had to wake the little one up and because they spoke to him when his mum was present they put it down to a acident yet .So my son had enough of they way she was behaveing towards him and his oldest child put her out we had a meeting with socail worker the head teacher myself my son and his ex. He told them that he was going to family court to get a order for the kids to stay with him which both his ex and the socail worker agreed on so that is what he did the night before he went to court which was the 9nov the judge agreed that the kids were to stay with him and the mother was to get suppervised visits 1 aweek and he was to go back to court in 2weeks to get a full order and that is where our night mare began as his ex had asked him the night before court to take her back and he said no 2days later the police came to the door not just 1 or 2 a couple of vans loaded to arrest my son on a charge of assualt on his ex which he spent 2 weeks in prison for and i had the kids when they informed his ex that my son would be getting out and that it was looking like the case was going to be flung out she then signed the kids over to socail services and they picked the kids up at school came to the house and left the kids in the car and told me that they were takeing the kids and never told me that there mum had signed them over led me to believe it was my fault said because of my health and that i was unable to look after them which was aload of bull as even the school said that they had no concearings about them .Then it all went down hill from there as the next thing we know is she then made all these other stuff up that he had suppose to have done to her .He was cleared at the crown court of the assult but the family courts said it dose matter if he got cleared the said it is possible he done it so he must have 1 of the other assults that she calaimed was that he had hit her full force on the face with a 20kg and 7foot long wieghts bar but she did not need to seek medical help as she had no marks or cuts and guess what the asked if he had wieghts and he has so they said he did it .I forgot to say the assult that she claimed he did to her was supposed to have happened in the begin of oct which we can prove she was not living here at the time and which she did not report until after he was given the kids in nov but it gets better did not go and seek medical help till the jan and tried to blame him for bruises that she had on her arms but admitted not seeing him in 6months and the family courts said she must be telling the truth and my son was not allowed to get his kids back at the start of the case they they tried to say i was scared of him and he would tell me what to do but now they are saying we are overclose .We only get to see the kids now 2 a year they keep asking them where they want to live and for 2 years the have said with there dad .They did say in court that they had no concears of him hitting his kids but she was found facted on 6 heavy handed assults on his oldest but said he might hit them when they get older and rebel against him there is alot more i can tell you but i donot want to bore yous .The family courts would not even look at his evidence he had

Demonstrators in Bratislava are echoing Slovak government criticism of Britain’s ‘child protection’ system

Slovaks protest at Britain’s ‘illegal child snatching’

Demonstrators in Bratislava are echoing Slovak government criticism of Britain’s ‘child protection’ system

Protesters outside the British Embassy in Bratislava Photo: THEDAILY.SK

 

By Christopher Booker

7:00PM BST 22 Sep 2012

 

More than 400 Slovak protesters jammed the street outside the British Embassy in Bratislava last Tuesday, brandishing placards with such slogans as “Britain thief of children” and “Stop legal kidnapping”. They were there to lend their voices to the Slovak government’s own concerns about British social workers and courts, which show a unique readiness to take children into care for what the website of the Slovak justice ministry calls “no sound reason”.

Slovakia has threatened to take the UK to the European Court of Human Rights over cases involving Slovak children, more than 30 of whom, according to one estimate, Britain has taken into care.

The demonstration was timed to coincide with a hearing in the London Court of Appeal of the plea of a grandmother, supported by the Slovak authorities, to have her two young grandsons returned to her care in Slovakia. Forcibly seized from their parents by social workers in 2010, the boys were sent by a judge for adoption earlier this year. Thanks in part to the presence in court last week of a senior official of the Slovak government and the intervention in the case of John Hemming MP, the grandmother was given leave by Lord Justice McFarlane to appeal.

On Friday, Slovak officials were also present in a Kent court which ordered five children from another family to be returned to Slovakia. The children were seized by social workers after the three youngest had been left in the care of their 17- and 15-year-old siblings while their parents were on night shift.

Mr Hemming is in touch with other foreign governments similarly concerned by the way their subjects are being taken into state care in Britain for reasons they believe to be in breach of human rights laws.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559657/Slovaks-protest-at-Britains-illegal-child-snatching.html

Adoptions stir emotions

10 Sep 2012Michaela Terenzani – StankováPolitics & Society

A MOTHER given just an hour per week to see her child, families separated without any legal reason, and little chance of parents winning back custody of their children: this is the picture that the Slovak media has recently painted of British social services, one which has provoked strong reactions in both countries.

Forced adoptions of Slovak children in the UK became a controversial news item in the Slovak media last month after Slovak channel TV JOJ broke the story of five children from near Humenné, in eastern Slovakia, who were placed in foster care after being taken away from their parents, Miroslav Goroľ and Veronika Čonková, Slovak citizens who left for the UK in June 2012. One of the five children was a baby born to the couple shortly after their arrival in the UK.

Temporary foster care is a step that may be followed by adoption if the parents fail to prove that they are able to provide suitable living conditions for their children, Slovak media reported on the case, provoking an uproar among Slovaks, piqued by the fact that the family is of Roma ethnicity.

British authorities have taken away about 100 Slovak children from their parents in the past three years, with some of the children having already been adopted by new parents in the UK, the Sme daily reported.

The Slovak media also voiced suspicions that British authorities were taking children away from their families with the purpose of satisfying British citizens who were interested in adopting a child as fast as possible, but failed to provide substantial grounds for such suspicions.

 

The procedure

 

In the UK, a court can only issue a care or supervision order “where the child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and will only make an order where this is better for the child”, according to the official UK judiciary website (www.judiciary.gov.uk). Any potential adoption order is preceded by care proceedings, which start by notifying the parents that the local authorities are considering care proceedings. The local authority then tries to cooperate with the parents to ensure full assessment of the child’s situation, provision of services and a child protection plan.

“Where serious concerns remain, the local authority makes an application to the court and sends a copy of the application to the parents,” the website states.

In the application, the local authority may ask the court to consider making an interim care order or an interim supervision order (temporary orders) at the first hearing. The court appoints a children’s guardian from Cafcass (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) to represent the child. The children’s guardian appoints a solicitor for the child. The court can decide that a child should be taken away from the parents to stay with relatives or at a foster home.

“It can do this at any time during the case if it thinks the child’s welfare demands it,” the website states.

 

Too concerned?

 

According to the statistics of the UK’s Department of Education, there were 65,520 children in foster care as of 31 March 2011, an increase of 2 percent from 2010 and an increase of 9 percent since 2007.

For the 27,310 children who were placed into foster care during the year ending March 31, 2011, the main reason cited was abuse or neglect (54 percent).

Altogether 3,050 children in foster care were adopted during the year ending March 31, 2011, a decrease of 5 percent from 2010 and a decrease of 8 percent since 2007. Similarly there has been a decrease in the number of children in foster care placed for adoption. This figure has fallen from 2,720 in 2007, to 2,500 in 2010 with a further drop to 2,450 in 2011. Information regarding the nationality of the children is not available.

But at the same time Cafcass states in the results of the 2012 Cafcass Care Study (under which they surveyed more than 200 Cafcass guardians in relation to 247 care applications involving 401 children, conducted in November 2011) that since 2007-08 Cafcass has witnessed a 62 percent increase in the numbers of local authority care applications. In 2011-12, and the number of applications topped 10,000 for the first time ever.

“[But] not all care applications result in children being taken into care,” the Cafcass spokesperson, Molly Garboden, noted in an e-mail interview with The Slovak Spectator. “They are just the applications to court and may well result in a child staying with their family.”

Almost half of the guardians surveyed mentioned Baby Peter or Peter Connelly in the free text responses when reasoning about the increased care application rates. Cafcass thus defines the ‘Baby Peter Effect’ as an increase in risk avoidance among local authority social workers, leading to an increase in care applications.

Peter Connelly died in August 2007 at home in Haringey, north London, after months of abuse, and his case was reported to have revealed incompetence among social workers, doctors, lawyers and police. The 17-month-old boy had suffered more than 50 injuries, and had been visited 60 times by the authorities in the eight months before his death, the BBC reported.

“Following on from the Baby Peter tragedy there was an upsurge in care applications which is still being sustained three years on,” Anthony Douglas, Cafcass Chief Executive, said when releasing the study results. “For vulnerable children today this defining study gives encouraging signs that court applications to protect them are now more timely and being made at an earlier stage of a local authority’s involvement with their family.”

 

Strong reactions

 

Media speculation that UK authorities might not have followed correct legal procedure has provoked strong reactions among Slovaks.

Civic activist Natália Blahová from the Association of Substitute Families (who previously sat in parliament as an MP for Freedom and Solidarity in the past), wrote an open letter to Slovak and international human rights guardians, saying that in Slovakia “it is almost absurd that a child is separated from a breastfeeding mother”.

“It is also unthinkable that countries take any steps leading to the separation of children from parents without first having performed proper social investigation in the family, and without giving a say to the children and the respective bodies of the country of which the children and their parents are citizens,” Blahová wrote in the letter, which she also published on her blog.

“It’s clear that Great Britain is not [abiding by] the European Convention on Human Rights,” British Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming told the Sme daily, adding that the situation has been worsening since 2000 when then prime minister Tony Blair started pressing for an increase in the rate of adoption orders.

Hemming has criticised British social workers in the past. Now he claims that the problem concerns about 1,000 families a year and the main issue is that proceedings are not public, which he wants to change by a draft amendment he is going to propose in October, Hemming told Sme.

On the other hand, Petra Schwarczová, who works as a freelance translator in the UK and often acts as a translator for British social workers when dealing with Slovak parents, criticised the Slovak media on her blog.

The news has provoked fear among Slovak citizens living in the UK, and many families, mainly of Roma ethnicity, have been contemplating leaving the country as soon as possible in order to protect their children, Schwarczová told The Slovak Spectator.

“Some families have left their houses and they are staying several families together in one house in order to have more men to protect them from social services when it comes to ‘steal’ their children,” Schwarczová said. She has never seen any child being taken away from its parents for good and given up for adoption, she said.

Her experience shows that social workers do not aim to take children away from their families as the first solution, but there are cases when such a step is inevitable, such as when children fail to attend school for a month or more because their parents took them for holidays to Slovakia, or when a child comes to school hungry every morning. There are also cases of sexual abuse and drug addiction in the families, Schwarczová wrote on her blog.

“Social workers and various other organisations are trying to do everything in order for the children to stay with their parents,” Schwarczová wrote, explaining that in her experience social workers working with Slovak families often do things that are not included in their workload at all, such as filling out their forms for social allowances, or organising housing in a council house for the family.

 

Slovak authorities respond

 

The Slovak authority responsible for dealing with such cases is the Centre for International Protection of Children and Youth, working under the Labour Ministry. The Centre’s head, Andrea Císarová, did not respond to the questions of The Slovak Spectator. She was due to fly to London to get more information on the cases of children taken from Slovak parents by British authorities, the Sme daily reported. She was not familiar with the problem as she has only been in the post for a month at the time when the media reported it.

Prime Minister Robert Fico said on hearing about the case that he found the British model of family care inspiring.

“In Slovakia we have often discussed taking a child away from the family in case the family doesn’t provide appropriate care,” Fico said as quoted by the Sme daily, adding that it would show the children “that they can have a completely different lifestyle than the one their parents offer”. 

More From Politics & Society

http://spectator.sme.sk/articles/view/47508/2/adoptions_stir_emotions.html

Phoenix Rising

You will never know my name, but that’s not important… what is important is my story.  I am one of thousands (and growing daily) of parents who have had their children removed by Social Services.  Now you might sit there and think “What did you do?!”  and you’d be right to do so, sometimes the SS don’t come into your life without a reason but sometimes… and these stories I shall also tell … they DO!

In 2009 my oldest child was removed from my custody into that of their fathers.  I will not go into details why but owing to events beyond my control I was cautioned with child neglect.   To this day I know I made mistakes, many parents do, but what followed for the next 4 years, what is STILL following has led me to creating this page.  It is time I spoke out, it is time I stood up and let myself be counted, because after those mistakes I spent the next four years improving myself into a person who was responsible, caring, helpful, loving and a good mother to another child.

However very recently this year I left a violent and abusive man, I proved him to be so, I recorded him threatening to kill me, I recorded him calling our baby

‘a little cunt’…

When I showed this recording to my social worker, instead of doing thewir job of protecting a vunerable child and woman, they went behind my back and supported the HIM… my baby was left with a violent man, despite me passing every assessment thrown my way for nearly half a decade, depsite HIS psychological assessment proiving him to be hostile and a cause for concern, I was removed from my home, my baby and my life.

I now live alone, crying myself to sleep most nights.

However, with support of friends and family, I am slowly rebuilding, and like a phoenix rising from the ashes I feel renewed…

So this page is a story, a blog, a diary, a journal etc etc…

but more than anything it is ONE thing you need to take note of…

…IT’S THE TRUTH!

Read more: http://sociallyserviced.webnode.com/
Create your own website for free: http://www.webnode.com

another mothers heartache submitted via comments x one love x

my name is Rebecca i would like to thank you all for this block

i was give birth in Africa to my lovely daughter and than i came to UK in 2006 with her two week later SS came and remove my child by force and i did not know nothing about SS in UK so they make a secret court with out my knowing and SS alone adopted my child some where in UK if i ask solicitor about my child and what happen in court they refused to let me know i remain all the time cry about my child after two year i found my new partner and we married my partner try to help me to get my daughter back he pay 10.000 pound to the solicitor but solicitor could not represent us the SS block his mouths to not told nothing to my partner and me in 2008 i became pregnant and after SS and police removed my beautiful baby at birth and put it up for adoption my child was removed with out skin to skin contact between me and my baby i was remain bleeding at birth and i never see my baby until this day i do not know if i will be allow to see my child one day to identify our self and have photo grape with my child as am biological mother to my baby my partner was told by SS and court in Manchester to choose between me and his son after birth my partner disagree with the court and we remain together till now but all of us family member have no access to our child my mother in law child grand ma travels to England to ask the court if she could care for my child the court say at lest his son could end his relationship with me my husband the father of my child say which law in the world say you have to choose between your child or you wife my husband ask the Manchester court if they should sent the case to the human right . social service and the court refuse to sent to the high court or European court of human right but they keep our case as a secret as a test case of united kingdom .this year we sent to European court of human right and it was awarded against united kingdom pending before the chamber the council who treated us very bad during the birth of our baby was bury local authority shame on you we will survival.

another mothers heartache damn you ss and family courts

Serena’s Story

This is my full story for the first time… 

At the beginning of 2001 at the age of 18 and after a very difficult labour I gave birth to a gorgeous baby girl who ended up in special care. This was very daunting but after 3 weeks I took her home. I split up with her dad 3 years later then the fun began. My own mother rang the local social services office telling lies that I was a drug user and had dirty needles about my house. This got proved to be malicious.

Over the years many more lies were told and many more times proved to be malicious. When my daughter was 5 years old I became homeless which left me with a choice of either putting her in foster care or to my mother, a place she knew, so I placed her with my mother. I got a house and took it to court to get my daughter back to no avail due to the length of time she had been there. I had as much contact with her as I wanted. In 2007 I had another baby. This time a beautiful baby boy.

The lies started again and again proved to be malicious. In time I had a 3rd child in 2009. In January of 2010 I had a visit from the local social services wanting to section me as they had had a report that I had smashed my babies head against a brick wall this was obviously untrue as my baby was happy and bouncing baby at 6 months old doing what babies of that age do. All 3 of my children were happy children clean with glowing smiles on their faces. This was shortly after my youngest childs christening.

I moved back to the area were my children were at school and my mother then decided she would take me to court for my oldest boy. Failed miserably. However every week social services were at my door believing all the lies my mother was spilling. She turned everyone in my bra against me with the lies she had used many times before. She managed it come March of this year. After 2 n half of me trying to prove myself I lost my babies. The social services had no orders what so ever and with in a week or so I managed to get the manager to admit it was an unlawful removal as well as admit that the social worker had falsified information on the files.

I am still fighting to this day to prove I am a good mother to my children. My so called parents now have care of my lovely stunning babies. Recently (Wednesday just gone) my gorgeous 3year old appeared at contact with a bust lip. I rang the police and social care who have done nothing about my childs injury. I can’t protect my little man as I’m not there to do so. Its heart breaking every day not knowing wide my children are and what other little accidents they will have while I’m not with them. This is my story that still continues as all the reports made to court are made up of lies that can be proved as just that as do many others like me.

Please share your stories so we can each help each other in a manner of different ways. And support each other. But for now we all need your help in this family unit, so please add all your friends and family to this group whether they have dealings with social services or not. The more people that join the wider spread awareness will be and people will see how corrupt the system is. This is the first time I have told my story in full and no doubt I have missed parts of it but this is a start and it lets people know they are not alone.

staffordshire local authority admit these failures under oath NO APOLOGY OR ACCOUNTABILITY

Hi 

 

Please see list below from Michelle, of the LA failures that you requested from her.

 

Helen

Helen Jarvis

Sent for and on behalf of Nigel Priestley

Ridley & Hall Solicitors

helen.jarvis@ridleyandhall.co.uk

01484 538421

 

§  No multi agency approach ( working together, nice guidelines, )

§  No effort to co-ordinate with other children’s sw

§  No proper assessments (no core assessment)

§  No identification of family needs

§  No risk ass

§  No initial involvement with MHT

§  No meeting with sol , m and ss as recommended in the initial CPC

§  No working agreement

§  Refusal to provide respite

§  No increased nursery  provision

§  Inadequate communication between the agencies

§  No provision of therapy , Dr D suggested she was ready to undertake it

§  No consideration of other recommendations ,eg LA taking a different approach

§  Not following recommendations of chair

 

For and behalf of Ridley & Hall Solicitors

Queens House, 35 Market Street, Huddersfield, HD1 2HL

Telephone: 01484 538421  Dx Number 710083 Huddersfield 8                       
Fax: 01484 533076 and 01484 430246 Email: Info@ridleyandhall.co.uk  Website: www.ridleyandhall.co.uk   
Members: Nigel J Priestley LLB Sarah E Young LLM Michael George                       
Partners: James E Cook LLB (Hons) Meena Kuma

 

My Experiences of Lincoln Social Services

My Experiences of Lincoln Social Services
(their motto is strengthening families -protecting children)

I was known to social services as I had to go to a parent assessment residential unit. I had a bad pregnancy,suffering severe hyperemis (contstantly vomitting) and other problems which led to me getting depressed and I had to have treatment for PND and given a short time to get well by social services. They said my son couldnt wait around for me to get well and would be adopted. 
I got through a mountain of difficulties and passed the residential assessment and they said I was one of the best parents who had been there. It was traumatic but I got through it.
The social worker at that time said I had a spectacular bond with my son and she had not seen a bond like this in all her time in social work. (This will become pertinent later). I was on a supervision order for a year and in that time I was reduced to seeing a assistant social worker as they didnt feel I needed a social worker as my son was looked after well.I was discharged when the supervision order ran out. 
The above social worker told me that she and her manager said if I ever needed any respite to just ask- as I was a good mum and they wanted to do all they could to help me. She said my son would stay in Lincoln and I could visit him whenever I liked. Unfortunately none of this was adhered to. No-one bothered to check the records. 

In January 2005 I had a series of bereavements. My abusive adopted father starved himself in hospital with alzheimers and died. My grandfather died, another friend died and a good friend was diagnosed with cancer. I also had to come off mild anti-depresssants due to Doctor’s instructions. I did not need them at the time for depression but had problems sleeping and hair pulling and they helped with that. I have not been on them since. It was the wrong time to stop them as I got withdrawals. 
In May 2005 I made the mistake of asking for respite that was offered. I needed a couple of weeks to get rid of the withdrawals and space after the bereavements. In fact after 3 weeks I was fit to have my son home.
Unfortunately this is when the nightmare started.
I met a new social worker. She hardly spoke to me. She didnt even tell me that we were having assessments at the contact centre. I didn’t know anything was wrong until told them I was free from the withdrawals and wanted to take my son home. I asked the SW if she could ring my CPN to verify this ,as he said I was now free from medication withdrawals and I was fit to have my son home. At no point did she ring my cpn or doctor and this was confirmed by my CPN at the time and also upheld in the complaint. (One procedure is that the sws must liase with the mental health team and work as part of a multi agency.) Unfortunately this sw and her manager did not display any professionalism or stick to any procedures. They did not want to hear that I was well and wanted to portray me as this mentally ill person who could not cope,which wasnt the case. This is how some people will behave if they have no accountability and don’t possess any personal integrity,professionalism and morals. The sw even told another worker that there wasn’t any withdrawals to my medication and it was just my bad mental health which was not true. Again this caused me further distress and worry as to what the hell was going on!
I said to the social worker that I was worried about my son. I said he wasnt his normal self and he was withdrawn and unhappy. The SW took me to a room along with an assistant worker and said I wasnt to take him home. She said she had serious concerns about our lack of bond which really astonished and shocked me. 
I told her that it was because he was in care that he had become like this and I was worried that he had thought I had abandoned him. I told her to look in the records which wou ld say I had a spectacular bond and to ask the previous sw who would tell her. She laughed and said the previous said I didnt want my son. Apparently this previous sw had told the Guardian that we did indeed have a strong bond and in my opinion the ex social worker wasn’t a troublemaker and would have said the same to this new SW. AH told me that I was ignoring professional concerns about my lack of bond and attachment with my son which I found really strange. I told her to ask Surestart and others who said I was a good mum. They both laughed maliciously and said people were spinning me a line when they said that. I became very alarmed and scared by their behaviour. I thought I am being set up and Im am going to lose my son and that is what they did try to do. 
I told them I was taking my child home-I was worried about him. I walked calmly out of the contact centre-not speaking. I rang for a taxi and went home.
My son instantly became his normal happy self again and I gave him a present of the bus and he happily played and then we had beans on toast.
A short time later there was a loud knock on the door and the police were there. I asked them politely to leave as we were having lunch and the police threatened to break down the door. That is when I tried to fight them off and stop them taking my child. The SW appeared and I was in handcuffs. I said you bitch you are taking my son and she grinned. She found the whole thing amusing and I really can’t understand that kind of mentality. With handcuffs on I did try to get my son away from her and apparently I scratched her which I find incredible to believe as she was grinning and I had handcuffs on. She did make a big thing of this in court but it was said most mothers would have fought like this for their child especially when taken unjustly like this.
To this day the neighbours who witnessed this speak of their horror at my treatment by the police.It is also not a good advertisement for police professionalism. The police seem to think they have to obey social services. It’s like an unwritten rule. The decision is totally down to the police and they should have investigated further. They should have contacted my doctor and CPN and made some enquiries. they would have told them the medication withdrawals were over and I was fit to have my child home. In fact this would have avoided a mountain made out of a mole hill.
My son was taken back in care. I got a phone call from the Access team manager and she said I was not allowed to see my son for I think it was 10 days or 2 weeks. I said to her he’s going to think Ive abandoned him. She was really horrible on the phone. I ended up crying afterwards and feeling totally alone and in despair. Basically she was punishing me for taking my son and I felt this led to my son being punished. It was just not right. She advised me to see a solicitor as I was going to be put under care proceedings. This manager bullied me rotten and at one point in my life I was having flashbacks and recurrring dreams about her. I had met her before and she did not look a nice person and had taken a dislike of me from the start. I heard of another single mum who also was not treated nicely by her. I can’t say if it was just me she disliked or I suspect most parents. 
I consulted a counsellor at this stage and in one counselling session this manager rang me and told me to come to the office and collect a rail ticket. She didn’t ask nicely or use any manners-just instructed me. Spoke to me really nastily. I said I dont want a rail ticket I will pay for my own. I love my son and dont mind paying to see him. She was slightly taken aback as she was probably not used to hearing this but anyway demanded that I come to the office as “this is the way we do things here”. ( I knew from a previous time that you could send the tickets to the office and they would reimburse you). Again this was just another bullying,unnecessary tactic to show me who was boss in order to make me upset.
Although I had 4 bereavements not once did any of the social workers in the Access Team show me any sympathy,empathy, compassion or understanding. These human qualities were sadly amiss in these people who are supposed to be in the caring profession and support families. It is such common practice now to bully families that there are support groups and websites springing up all over the internet to support and give advice to distraught families. People can’t speak out about their social workers behaviour because they receive a gagging order so the abuse is kept hidden. The complaints system is geared to protecting social services staff. complaints manipulated so they are not sued and nothing ever changes.
After the care proceedings I read the police records and she had given misleading statements to the police to alarm them.She made out I was mentally ill and that I had stopped my medication. She failed to tell the police it was mild anti-depressants ,that it wasnt serious medication that someone with a psychosis would take and that the GP had stopped it because I didnt need it. if she had told the truth then the police might have handled the situation differently??

I ended up in court where the Sw said my son was at risk of significant physical and emotional harm if he was returned to me. Ive had my son back for 7 years and he has s never been harmed apart from on the football pitch. Indeed the court said that I wasnt capable of harming anyone. The Social workers and there legal team even said I was a danger to my son as I was a danger to myself as they were so desperate to find something that they could use against me as the significant harm theory had not worked.
Again saying I was a danger to myself was a lie as I wasnt suicidal. Indeed my CPN commented ” How can they use that against you in court as it’s not true ” .I said they just seem to make up stuff as they go along.
I think, possibly, I agreed to an EPO,due to legal advice as my solicitor wanted to collect evidence from my doctor. I was in such a state,shaking and vomiting in the court toilets,hating myself for asking for respite and feeling that I was going to lose the most precious thing in the world to me just for a couple of stupid weeks of respite.Cursing myself for being so naive and stupid for trusting them. 
Again the sws grinned when I came into the courts and were very hostile and distant to me.I was treated like a criminal by this social work team,not like a responsible mother who was asking for a couple of weeks rest. My solicitor did try to get my case in the district court where it would have been thrown out but they said it could be handled in the magistrates court. So I had to spin out the ordeal.
It turned into a hellish experience. At one point the sws wanted me to see an expert witness who I knew would give me a bad report. I knew they were setting me up.Thankfully I didnt get this person as there was a 6 month waiting list for her and the Guardian got an expert witness who did a report in 2 weeks. He turned out to be impartial. I explained to him that I had just asked for a couple of weeks of respite due to medication withdrawals. He confirmed that the medication did produce the withdrawals I had described,contrary to what the social worker had stated-that there was no withdrawals it was just my mental health problems. He said in his report that I had asked for help and was responsible. The sw had tried to make out that other people had referred me in order to make it look like I had been irresponsible. I thought this was really sneaky and not giving me any credit. 
She wrote a 27 page report and the only good thing in it was that I had a clean kitchen. She found fault with everything. Tried to make out that I dumped my child on his grandmother too much. His gran lived 60 miles away and didnt like driving so he stayed with her about twice a year. 
She said the fact I used Surestart was evidence I was not coping. The surestart worker said I only needed to see her once a month as I coped well and that I was a lovely mum. Of course none of this was put in the sw report. I got an excellent report from Surestart. The SW really was struggling to find stuff against me so had to resort to stereotypes,lies and exaggerations and her own negative biased opinion.
My barrister actually said that what others had put in their statements and what she had said about me was like reading about 2 different people. I had only known this SW for 2 weeks. She did not know me or my child yet she condemned me in a 27 page report. It is just downright perjury and social workers should be forced by law to write truthful,fair and balanced reports of people. A playgroup worker told me that she didnt wish to speak to social services again as her words were taken out of context. I had only spoken to this playgroup person to say hello and she said that they had no concerns about my son’s welfare. He was happy,clean and fed when they saw him. She did say that he didnt run up to me like some other kids to their mothers but he had me all day,every day as we lived on our own so enjoyed playgroup. My other son does run up to me after nursery. AH took her words to back her up about the lack of bond and it was just ridiculous. The sw claimed I couldnt cope with my son without support and made me out to be mentally ill,unstable and incompetent. I have had my son home for 7 years without one referral to social services yet I could have lost my son based on her lies and wrong assumptions. 
The Guardian said that my son was coming home and criticised these sws in her report for badly handling my case.That they didnt have evidence of significant harm to really justify a police protection order and said there was plenty of evidence in the records of a good strong bond and attachment and that the previous social worker had told her we had a good bond.

Basically AH built a case to keep my son in care based on something she knew was untrue. I have found out since that this is happening to many people. I cannot believe that AH did not know that a child can become withdrawn if they are put in care and the child doesn’t know what is going on. 
At age 3 he couldnt talk as he had speech delay- due to glue ear I later found out. I have been told by people who have worked with children and a psychologist that my child becoming withdrawn and distant is actually proof of a strong bond as that is how young children become in this situation. Although this first team were unprofessional and incompetent I can’t believe that a trained social worker would not know this. I know this was used maliciously to make a case against me. I have heard it happen to other parents too often now to not believe that parents are being set up by social services and this lack of bond issue is being used to maliciously hold children in care,sometimes because they can’t find any other evidence to use against the parents.
Half way through the proceedings I had a change of sw team and that is when my luck changed. They condemned the first team and began listening to people and being honest. Not maliciously finding fault with every thing I did and turning everything into a negative. They told me to put in a complaint about the first team and the way they had treated me. (Social services complaints system is another form of abuse to already traumatised families in my opinion and does nothing to address social workers bad behaviour).
The expert witness gave me a good report despite seeing the social worker’s statement making me out to be the worse mother that had ever lived. I explained the situation and he dismissed her questions.
3 months after the proceedings began my child came home. Basically a case was made quickly out of nothing as they had to justify a police protection order -ie removal or snatch. They had to find anything bad to justify their actions and bad behaviour in the contact centre. Instead of just admitting they had done wrong -they had to put me and my son through great trauma. It was nothing to do “with being in the best interests of the child”. It was just to cover their own backs which other people have confirmed.
My son suffered from separation anxiety for 2 years. He did not want to leave my side.He would scream. I was deeply traumatised and only recently have I had proper treatment for the trauma symptoms and fear of social services that I have suffered with.
I did put in a complaint and this is another abusive and traumatic process to go through. I submitted my complaint to the complaints manager. He said to me I will only put 2 complaints down because only 2 will be upheld. I said well how do you know? The complaints you don’t put down might be upheld! It was astonishingly bad. I found out that my independent investigator was to be the complaints officer in the next county and even though they assured me it was totally impartial and the complaints officers did second stage investigations for each other-I declined. 
I then received another investigator. He didn’t want me to put the social workers names in the complaint.He just went on about this. He wanted me to make the complaint against the department.I found this a bit odd. I said it was the social workers who treated us badly and I wanted them named. In the end he went off in a huff and said he didn’t want to do the investigation. I later found out that the General Social Care Council have to have the social workers names written in the complaint otherwise they can’t investigate them. I thought this investigator,in my opinion, was not impartial. 
The next investigator did a whitewash as expected and the Local Government Ombudsman said that the investigator should have been made to do the investigation again as he didnt address my concerns and issues. The third stage panel werent much better although they upheld a little more but said the way we had been treated didnt merit any compensation.
The LGO found the complete opposite and ordered them to issue me with an apology and a statement of revision of procedures. We did get an apology for the distress caused and for not getting support. The revision of the procedures didnt convince me that anything had changed for the better. If a family were known to social services then the LGO said that they should have their original social work team who knows them and not go back to the Access Team but I dont know if this has been addressed.
Not once did the Director of the children’s services, Peter Duxbury, show any concern for his staffs behaviour or talk to me or want to find out more. I was treated like the enemy when I put in a complaint, not viewed in a positive way to improve the system and protect the public from bad workers. 
The complaints officer moaned to me in front of a witness that the social workers had received letters from the GSCC (General Social Care Council) and were upset. I found this deeply unimpartial and strange that he didnt have the empathy to understand why I should not be bothered that they were upset after trying to wreck my family. I find this blind one track thinking that social services staff portray very weird and emotionally distant.
I know from acquaintances and friends who associate with social services in their jobs that things remain the same. I also know that people are losing their children through similar circumstances to mine that should have been helped. That are good parents. I don’t want to mention cases as I haven’t asked their permission. 
Nobody from the Local Government Ombudsman checks to see if social services are following the revised procedures. So all in all it was a waste of time. My 1250 compensation went to my old address. 100 for our bad treatment and 250 for the mishandling of my complaint which went to the wrong address. I was so traumatised by social services that I couldnt even e-mail them I was so distressed .
I went through the complaint system to try and change things but from hearing things there is no change. People with mental health problems are losing their children without any proper help and support and the prejudice against them remains. 
My social worker suddenly disappeared to Nottinghamshire when my complaint was put in which is a common tactic used throughout the country by social services. It is not good enough and does nothing to address the problems or corrupt staff and its not fair to unsuspecting families who do not know their history. The SW manager showed no remorse and didn’t even bother to send me the written apology she was supposed to and remains unrepentent and I pity the poor souls that cross her path.
As for the assertion that social services only take parents to court as the last resort and do all they can to help families. Well I hope my experiences will dispell this myth and in reality you can easily lose your children in this screwed up system! All it takes is for an unprofessional and power mad social worker, who has a particular prejudice and dislike of a parent, and you can be in big trouble. 
On a final note I don’t see how lying about a parent’s capabilities can “be in the best interests of the child.” Unless we live in a state where a mother and child’s love for each other doesn’t matter and giving a child to strangers with a bigger house and a 4 wheel drive is all that matters.To me that is state sanctioned social engineering from the past and nothing more than child abuse.

mothers heartache

I am a very proud mummy to 7 beautiful children and I spent my teens in care being treated worse than an animal would be treated, at 25 I was at the end of a massively abuse relationship when I started in labour with my 3rd child his dad started hitting me so I fled and hid in a phone box where I gave birth, it terrified me and I developed what I no now to be ptsd I hit the alcohol bad and neglected my children something iv regretted always they were taken into care eldest went for adoption other two with violent dad got eldest back from adoption at 12 and passed all the assessments I’d previously failed so badly in previous hearing, I got married had another 3 kids whilst preg with my 7th my husband left me and disappeared came back month before birth attacked me and broke my pelvis I was in agony cud hardly walk but still had 3 kids under 5 to bring up (ss got eldest flat at 16) alone I neglected the house work those next few weeks ended up giving birth at home ambulance rang ss bang they jumped in my life again, I was doing great at first my pelvis was better now not preg was managing alone not one person in my life lifted a finger to help me. Sure start were working with me and I had home help twice a week kids went to school with fresh fruit in clean nice clothes and were well fed we went out often to the seaside or their antys in manchester then I was informed sw had changed and the bitch arrived she terroized me told me my kids were too beautiful for likes of me played hundreds of dirty nasty tricks I complained to her manager he laughed at me told me my complaints go in the shredder her team leader presented her with flowers when 11 months after my baby was born my kids were dragged out of my house kicking and screaming terrified with police ss etc avin a laugh and a smoke outside because I’d been ironing iron hadn’t cooled down and 5 n 6 year old were fighting one touched other with iron he had a 1cm burn on back of his neck now youngest two gone for adoption the boys are seperated haven’t seen me or each other for 2 years and have to spend rest of their childhood in foster care iv never laid a hand on my kids and love them dearly do u really think its right I can never see them again coz of a messy house after a struggle that got sorted and a tiny accident coz I don’t I now suffer Badly with my mental health and am recovering from my third mental breakdown

Hyndburn woman delivers next door neighbour’s baby

 By Emma Cruces »

A NEW mum has thanked her neighbour for delivering her second lightning-birth baby.

BABY JOY: Mum Cheryl (left) and new-born baby Kelsie with neighbour Tracey

In 1997, Church woman Cheryl Corless made the front page of the then Lancashire Evening Telegraph after giving birth to her baby son Harry in a phone box as she tried to dial 999.

Some 12 years on, the 36-year-old mum gave birth to her seventh child Kelsie in her young son’s bedroom with the help of her next-door neighbour Tracey Gilsenan.

Cheryl, who was alone in the house while her husband Anthony, 22, was at his mother’s, was a week away from a scheduled Caesarean because the baby was breached.

But, 15 minutes after feeling her first contraction, little Kelsie made an appearance.

Tracey delivered the baby with the help of a 999 operator, shortly after being woken by a phone call.

Earlier that day Cheryl had had slight pains, but dismissed them as wind. “None of my other babies were fast, except Harry.

“I was expecting a long delivery, but just at the last minute Kelsie must have turned.

“I called Tracey and sent a text message to Anthony. It was just 15 minutes later I sent another saying ‘Too late, she’s here!’”

Kelsie is the couple’s fourth child along with Lewis, four, William, three and 18-month-old Alfie.

Cheryl’s children from a previous relationship, Danny, 17, who lives in Blackburn and Sally, 13, and Harry, 12, who live with their father, are also delighted with their “adorable” sister.

Cheryl added: “Tracey was amazing with me and the kids, who were up. I can’t thank her enough for everything.”

Tracey added: “Cheryl was very calm and the operator told me what to do.

“The most frightening bit was picking her up and placing her on her mum while she was still attached.”

Cheryl, made the front page of the Lancashire Evening Telegraph when she gave birth to Harry in 1997 two weeks early in a phone box in Church Street, Church.

Harry was rescued from his mum’s leggings by his dad, Leigh Swindlehurst, before passing ambulance workers stopped to help.

Cheryl, whose maiden name is Bell, says Kelsie will be definitely be her last child.

She said: “There’ll be no more! Our family is definitely complete.

“Anthony has been after a little girl and he has her now.”

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/archive/1970/01http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4216971._Thanks_neighbour_for_delivering_my_baby__//01/Lancashire+Archive/6192548.Baby_born_in_phone_box/

lyrics written by me do family court agents have a conscience ?

UK SS EXPOSED

social services expect us your inhumane actions against families have been duly noted

the system is now at breaking point
we are anonymous
we are legion
we do not forgive
we do not forget
EXPECT US !

for the police

…

…

Newborn babies taken by social services at birth

S. Prichard made this Freedom of Information request to Staffordshire County Council

There was a delivery error or similar, which needs fixing by the WhatDoTheyKnow team.

 

From: S. Prichard

27 April 2012

Dear Staffordshire County Council,

Please can you tell me the statistics of the following under the
freedom of information act for statistics of the following going
back 5 year to date.

1. How many children were forcefully removed from their parents
when the child was 10 or above?

2. How many children were forcefully removed from their parents
when the child was aged between 5 – 9?

3. How many children were forcefully removed from their parents
when the child was aged between 3 – 4?

4. How many children were forcefully removed from their parents
when the child was aged between 1 – 2?

5. How many children were forcefully removed from their parents
when the child was newborn to 12 months?

6. If newborn, how long did the baby remain with the parents?

7. If newborn, was the child allowed to be breast fed by the
parent?

8. What are the statistics regarding health and development of
breast fed babies against formula fed babies?

9. Please supply statistics of children forcefully removed from
parents, that are now adults have gone on to do the following,
compared to children that remained with their parents

a) drugs
b) prostitution
c) failure at school
d) crime
e) prison / child detention centre or similar
e) Mental Health Problems
f) Their own children removed because they were adopted at birth

Yours faithfully,

S. Prichard

Link to this

 

From: S. Prichard

22 May 2012

Dear Staffordshire County Council,

Please can you acknowledge this request

Yours faithfully,

S. Prichard

Link to this

 

From: S. Prichard

28 May 2012

Dear Staffordshire County Council,

Please refer to internal review. Your council seem to have been
evasive with your FOI requests towards social services

I am appalled about the barbaric way your council act towards
fellow human beings.

I refer to two cases the below link shows that your LA employed
someone that was reported for child porn but you still allowed this
person to have access to children. It appears your council also
tried to cover this up.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/so…

The second I am appalled at a blog I found of a baby being removed
at birth and this baby denied to even feed from its mother

http://staffordshiresocialservices.wordp…

Yours faithfully,

S. Prichard

Link to this

 

From: S. Prichard

28 May 2012

Dear Staffordshire County Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Staffordshire County
Council’s handling of my FOI request ‘Newborn babies taken by
social services at birth’.

[ FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR RESPOND ]

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ne…

Yours faithfully,

S. Prichard

Link to this

 

sandy Joyce left an annotation (28 May 2012)

Gosh, no acknowledgement to anything you wrote? That is awful 

I know of the case you linked to funnily enough, absolutely disgusting behaviour by the LA 

Have a read of this regarding foi 

http://www.ukauthority.com/NewsArticle/t…

Link to this

 

S. Prichard left an annotation (29 May 2012)

No answer – and looking at other requests they dont seem to answer any that have showed their barbaric methods. 

Lets hope that this foi raises awareness to this council’s underhand barbaric illegal tactics

Link to this

 

From: Allen, Gemma (L&D)
Staffordshire County Council

29 May 2012

Dear S Prichard

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Thank you for your request for information. 

Staffordshire County Council does not ‘forcefully remove’ any children from their parents. 

Children who are removed against the agreement of parents would be subject to either police protection (removed by Police) or as a result of an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) or Interim Care Order (ICO) which are granted by the Court.

I note that you have requested an internal review. Please confirm if you would still like an internal review to go ahead. 

If you have any queries or require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

In the first instance if you have any comments relating to how your request has been handled by our authority, please write to Philip Jones, Head of Information Governance, Wedgwood Building, Block A, Tipping Street, Stafford, ST16 2DH. 

If you have any further comments relating to how your request has been handled by our authority, please contact the Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely 
Gemma Allen
Access to Information Officer
Information Governance Unit
Staffordshire County Council
Staffordshire Place
c/o Wedgwood Building – Block A
Tipping Street, Stafford
ST16 2DH
Tel:             01785 278568      

[email address]

show quoted sections

Link to this

 

From: S. Prichard

29 May 2012

Dear Allen, Gemma (L&D),

I find it concerning that it was only after an internal review I
received a response from your council.

I will rephrase the questions changing the “forcibly removed”
phrase to an EPO or an ICO (please break down statistics)

I will expect a response within 20working days from today’s date to
stop an internal review

I would like to know how many parents whose children were subject
to an EPO or ICO complained that social services or social workers
facts were actually opinions with no evidence, they have mislead
professionals or courts, perverted the course of justice or abused
their powers as a social worker

Yours sincerely,

S. Prichard

Link to this

 

sandy Joyce left an annotation (29 May 2012)

The child was forcefully removed while the mother was still in the labour position, neither parent wanted their child taken and the social worker was in the labour room 

Court order or not, this was a classic snatch

Link to this

 

Vickie Clayton left an annotation (30 May 2012)

Watch out as they will pull the ‘cost above £450’ malarkey just offer to work for them for free and pay for your own crb check and sign a confidentiality firm. They can’t refuse any information then. Be cautious of the fools

Link to this

 

 left an annotation ( 4 June 2012)

HaHaHaha Your Havin a Laff Pmsl rofl 

http://Staffordshiresocialservices.wordp…

Diamond Jubilee costs UK economy £275m

Diamond Jubilee costs UK economy £275m

 

 

Mon May 28, 2012 9:55AM GMT

 

 

 

 

 

Britain’s royal family is worth a dizzying £44 billion in tangible and intangible assets as a brand, a study shows, yet the Queen’s upcoming Diamond Jubilee will damage the British economy by at least £275 million.

Brand Finance said in a special report ahead of the Queen Elizabeth’s celebrations of 60 years on the throne that tangible assets of the royal family including the Duchy of Cornwall are worth a staggering £18 billion. 

The tangible assets are those assets that the monarchy controls directly and makes money from. 

Brand Finance said the monarchy is also valued another £26 billion in intangible assets, which include the royal family income from several sources such as the Royal Warrant scheme as well as the boost to British tourism and businesses as a brand. 

The report said the Royal Warrant alone brings in £4 billion annually while many companies also strive to get a Coat of Arms on their products that is worth separately an annual £400 million. 

While being a royal earns an individual a huge income annually, the report shows that the benefits are not extended to the British economy when it comes to the Diamond Jubilee. 

The Brand Finance said the celebrations are estimated to boost tourism, leisure and accommodation industry by £924 million while the cost of the extra Bank Holiday for the Diamond Jubilee is around £1.2 billion. 

The report did not take account of the massive cost of security for the event, which features a 1,000-boat pageant on the Thames River in central London. 

AMR/MA/HE

 http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/05/28/243476/diamond-jubilee-uk/

Peasants Royal Vagina Angers Irish Cop (Loyalist?)

…

Protest against police corruption and unaccountability – 12th JUNE 2012 – LONDON #policecorruption #ipcc #protest #police

Protest against police corruption and unaccountability – 12th JUNE 2012 – LONDON #policecorruption #

 

Dear MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT,

I am writing to bring your attention to a protest being organised against Police corruption and the lack of accountability with the current police complaints system.

The protest will be held at the conference ‘Policing 2012 – accountability and results’ on June 12th 2012 at;

Central Hall Westminster
Storey’s Gate
London
SW1H 9NH

 

As the conference title seems to suggest ‘accountability’ will be on the agenda. We will be making it clear, from the perspective of the public, who suffer a police complaints system which is at best ineffective, there is currently NO accountability.

We would like to invite you to speak and address this peaceful gathering. The protest is a short walk from Parliament and you may come at any time during the day to suit your busy schedule. To give you an indication of the organisers behind this event, you may view the successful ‘Abolish the IPCC’ demonstration held on May 1st, linked below. This event received good coverage from the BBC and resulted in the Home Affairs select committee calling a public inquiry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmUDXZ77Qw&feature=share

Speakers will be video’d and footage released to a sizeable and growing body of concerned people. Please feel free to get back to us if you require further information on the protest.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Doherty
Campaign4Justice

 

 

 

We do not Forgive. We do not Forget. We are Anonymous. Expect Us.

We do not Forgive. We do not Forget. We are Anonymous. Expect Us.

Target 1-> http://www.uefa.com/
Target 2-> http://ukraine2012.gov.ua/en/ 
Target 3-> http://www.president.gov.ua/en/

|#Op Ukraine – @AnonOpsLegion.

 

Tango Down: 
http://UEFA.com/ Fire !! | #OpUkraine 

Reason : http://www.peoplesliberationfront.net/anonpaste/?8a7f89344f1be657#ChJr2qJK+Er1tPTmeQ7dI1cfsvPaMKzSLPNBctvuDzw=

Staffordshire County Council

 

Srad

If you need a little help or support then our social services will be eager to tear your family apart.

http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/health/socialservicesareaoffices/home.aspx

Staffordshire County Council – Social Services Offices

http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk

Your local office is the first point of call for all our services..

March 30

http://cpscrimes.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/psychopsema/

PSYCHOPSEMA

cpscrimes.wordpress.com

psychopsema Psychopsema psy-cho-pse-ma is a system of questionable actions that a Social Service agency or a Child Protection Service agency might utilize to achieve profit, through 

fraudulent means.   Psychopsema is mainly categorized as an orchestrated assault, utilizing several methods of fraud, psychological operations, psychological intimidation and other similar premeditated offense based systems, against a parent, a child or a family. A malicious social worker or other malicious social service professionals (usually, employed by a Child Protection Service (CPS) agency or a similar social service agency) are commonly identified as utilizing this system or methodology to achieve profit. Psychopsema is usually implemented to deflect attention, away from crimes committed by said workers against children. As, those children are sometimes canvased for the purpose of profit. The term and description were created by Canadian and American social service crime researchers Nicolas Stathopoulos and Felicita Luna in early 2011. Both researchers are part of SSEC Social Service Economic Crimes (research) 1 – A false report of child abuse is authored by a group of social workersagainst a single parent or parents. The colluding workers then, utilize the methodology of psychopsema to profit from the crime.   2 – A malicious social service worker colludes with her peers to fabricate evidence and to practice psychopsema. 3 – The system of psychopsema subjects a victim into the social service system without merit or justification. 4 – Psychopsema is mainly categorized as an orchestrated assault against a parent, a child or a family by a social service worker, seeking to profit from a crime.

 

What’s this!? It’s a picture of our office doormat. You have no rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:English_Bill_of_Rights_of_1689.jpg

File:English Bill of Rights of 1689.jpg – Wikimedia Commons

en.wikipedia.org

Image:English Bill of Rights of 1689 (top).jpg, Image:English Bill of Rights of 1689 (middle).jpg, and Image:English Bill of Rights of 1689 (bottom).jpg

 

We use this as toilet paper in our offices. Procedures waste our time and resources, we like to deny and withhold support and prefer to kidnap your children and go straight for an adoption.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents

Children Act 1989

http://www.legislation.gov.uk

An Act to reform the law relating to children; to provide for local authority services for children in need and others; to amend the law with respect to children’s homes, community homes, voluntary homes and voluntary organisations; to make provision with respect to fostering, child minding and day …

 

We also supply specially printed toilet paper to all our Family Courts.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

Human Rights Act 1998

http://www.legislation.gov.uk

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.

 

We are so very proud of our Quackery, we have a range of psychiatrists and psychologist already paid for to make sure we reach our adoption targets. 

Here’s one of our best.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116175/The-doctor-broke-families-Psychiatrist-damned-hundreds-unfit-parents-faces-GMC-probe.html

The doctor who broke up families: Psychiatrist who damned hundreds as ‘unfit parents’ faces GMC prob

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Dr George Hibbert faces being struck off over his conclusions that hundreds had ‘personality disorders’ 

 

Joe Burns Hey Staffordshire, how much did you pay this “Whore of Court”? We wil do an FOI to find out. At his trial, your staff will be appearing as witnesses. This is all going to get very public from now on, stuff your gagging orders.

 

Please ask us any question you like and we’ll do our best to ignore you.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/staffordshire_county_council

Staffordshire County Council – view and make Freedom of Information requests – WhatDoTheyKnow

 

Staffordshire County Council’s Families First Service works in partnership with schools and other organisations across the county to ensure that no family is safe from our team of expert criminals.

http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/health/childrenandfamilycare/homepage.aspx

Staffordshire County Council – Children and Family Care

http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk

 

We actually work against parents and make every effort to see your children adopted. What we write and what we do and say are so very different.

http://www.care4child.org/Fostering/TheLawandFostering.aspx

Fostering & Adoption for Staffordshire County Council – The Law and Fostering?

http://www.care4child.org

 

Our pens are truly mightier than any sword, we can kill with a single letter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7840626/Big-money-to-be-made-in-the-adoption-trade.html

Big money to be made in the adoption trade – Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

 

We’re now telling mothers that they need to be induced only 2 days before the due date. This is all done in “the best interest of the child”, we love this Adolf Hitler quote, it gives us the power to do anything we want to. This gives us …See More

Have you seen this child . She has just been snatched from a delivery suite by staffordshire county council

 

Any parents who expect us to fork out for support are kidding themselves. We prefer to punish both parents and their children with unusual cruelty while transferring taxpayers money to the crown via our private court. Of course there are a handful of our close friends who get a piece of the action.

 

We have collaborated in mentally raping a woman for years.

 

 

 

 

Adopters Who Abuse and Kill

Adopters Who Abuse & Kill

It’s not “rare.” The REASONS are different in the shocking number of cases of ADOPTERS who killed their ADOPTED children, than in cases of BIOLOGICAL PARENTS who killed their BIOLOGICAL children

 

Custom Search

---

Adoption Page

Adopt-A-Quote

Adopted Child Syndrome

Adopted Killers

…and More Adopted Killers

Adopted Prisoners

Adoptees’ War Memorial

Adopters Against Adoption

Adopters Who Abuse & Kill

Adoption & Race

Adoption Shockers

Adoption Uncensored (FREE)

AdoptSpeak & Censorship

Alternatives to Adoption

Anti-Adoption Petition

Attorney Referrals

Baby Brokers, The (List of)

Baby Theft 1938

Baby Theft 1968

Chosen Children 2012 (FREE)

Church, State & Adoption

Death by Adoption

Death Penalty

Donor Offspring/Parents Registry (FREE)

Ebay, Paypal Secret Policies

Email U.N. About Adoption Abuse

Famous Adoptees

Forced Sterilizations, Forced Adoptions

Gay, Lesbian, Adopted

Genealogy, Death of

Human Rights & Adoption

Infertility Cures (FREE)

Intercountry Adoption

Italian Tonight! (FREE)

Malpractice – Dental

Malpractice – Medical

Malpractice – Social Worker

Medical Issues of Adoptees

Non-Attorney Representation

Obama Birth Certificate

‘Open Record’ Archive (FREE)

Opposing Viewpoints (Adoption)

Privacy Hypocrisy

Questions to Ask Agency or Court

Records, Privately Held

Records, Publicly Held

Records, Secret Military/Govt.

Search Worldwide (FREE)

Statistics of Adoption (FREE)

Stopping or Annulling Adoption

Switched, Stolen, Black Market Babies & The Baby Brokers

 

http://www.amfor.net/KillerAdopters

---

 

Last Updated: March, 2012

“In the best interest of the child”: 64,400 children in ‘care’ for £3 billion

Posted on April 28, 2012

It would be nice to have these kind of statistics in comparison with other countries. But anywhere in the world, statistics hide weeping children and pining parents on one side and Social Workers, legal teams, foster carers, contacts centres and adoption agencies who make a living out of this £3 billion ‘industry’.

Here’s the 11-page report Children in Care in England: Statistics from the House of Commons Library. Page 9 is a neat summary of gross expenditure:

• the cost per child rose from £22,343 in 2000/01 to £37,669 in 2009/10
• the cost of children’s homes from £694.7m to £969.4m
• secure accommodation from £17.8m to £26.0m
• fostering services from £550.6m to £1253.1m.

An embarrassing note is that Black Ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the statistics…

In 2010, The Telegraph published Care costs for children are higher than Eton fees, says Big Issue Founder.

The Panorama film The Truth about Adoption quoted £150/day.

The National Adoption Agency up for Sale article values the  business at £135 million.

In the case of the Musas, I can’t help but quote

1. African Publicity and other Public Support who put the identities of the six children into the public domain
2. the whistleblower who had said to Christopher Booker from The Telegraph that the Council had falsely accused the mother, but that it was vital to continue to justify its actions
3. Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832):

In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place, can any of the checks, applicable to judicial injustice, operate.

Where there is no publicity there is no justice.

http://gloriamusa.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/in-the-best-interest-of-the-child-64400-children-in-care-for-3-billion/

http://www.stolenchildrenoftheuk.co.uk/

Join Us

Whether you are a lifetime advocate or new to our cause, we invite you to join us. To pass on photo’s of your own children if they have been Stolen by the State. This website is here for us and for Our Stolen Children to help us find their whereabouts and also for Our Children to find us. The time has come to show the citizens of the UK what is happening to our children and to also show the world the Children Stolen by the State UK.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/584/316/917/demand-justice-for-families-torn-apart-by-fraudulent-psychiatrist/

Demand Justice for Families Torn Apart by Fraudulent Psychiatrist

 

• signatures: 154
•  
• signature goal: 1,000

 

 

 

• post to facebook
• tweet this
• email your friends
• get the widget

 

• overview
• petition

• Target: The UK coalition government
• Sponsored by: Guinevere Nell

Dr George Hibbert knowingly misdiagnosed hundreds of parents as mentally ill, leading authorities to take their children away. He is currently being investigated by the General Medical Council, who have not yet made any charges against him. 

Meanwhile, there has been little attention given to the story (although there is one story in the Daily Mail) and so far there is no discussion about what led local councils or social security to accept his diagnoses, there have been no changes to the system that allowed this to happen, and no steps have been taken to return these children to their parents.

These parents were grievoulsy wronged. Hibbert should be jailed, the children returned to their original families (and those families should be monetarily compensated as well for their grief) and the system that allowed this to occur should be scutinized and seriously reformed.

Demand justice for these families! 

 

 

 

 

 

Your signature has been delivered to:
The UK coalition government

 

we signed “Demand Justice for Families Torn Apart by Fraudulent Psychiatrist”

# 150

04:08, May 30, Mrs. Karen Hughes-stainsby, United Kingdom

# 149

09:52, May 29, Mrs. Cleide Zappa, United Kingdom

# 148

18:43, May 27, Ms. Maria Portugal, Brazil

# 147

10:59, May 25, Mrs. june lipscombe, United Kingdom

# 146

15:15, May 24, Claire Turner, United Kingdom

# 145

04:35, May 24, Mrs. Sue Vaughan, United Kingdom
This is disgusting & he should be fired or jailed & give the children back to their families, from another who is fighting a lying psychiatrist for her kids

# 144

17:44, May 23, Luciane Amancio, Brazil

# 143

05:47, May 22, Deborah Camp, United Kingdom

# 142

05:13, May 22, Name not displayed, Australia

# 141

01:54, May 22, Mrs. janette rathbone, United Kingdom
help stop families torn about by doctors and phychiatrists.

# 140

22:43, May 21, Clive Thompson, United Kingdom

# 139

22:39, May 21, Name not displayed, United Kingdom

# 138

17:56, May 21, Ms. Denisia Lima, United Kingdom

# 137

12:52, May 21, Mr. Sam Sutton, United Kingdom
Please sign and share.

# 136

11:21, May 21, Mrs. Izabella Vianna, United Kingdom

# 135

10:20, May 21, Mariana Camarotte, United Kingdom

# 134

10:11, May 21, Name not displayed, United Kingdom
Vulnerable people need to be able to trust mental health professionals as few enough dare to approach mental health services when they are in a crisis. If they cannot do this lives will be put at risk and families torn apart. People abusing their professional knowledge in such a way should be punished by the full force of the law as an example to others.

# 133

10:01, May 21, Mrs. C suttonCSutton, United Kingdom

# 132

09:22, May 21, Name not displayed, United Kingdom
I think he should be ashamed of himself how would like his children dragged away from him

# 131

09:22, May 21, Mrs. Emilia Brumini, United Kingdom

# 130

09:20, May 21, Ms. Vania Gay, United Kingdom

# 129

08:47, May 21, Ms. Marta Fernandes, United Kingdom

# 128

04:27, May 21, Virgina Cunha, United Kingdom

# 127

00:31, May 21, Claudia O’neill, United Kingdom

# 126

03:01, May 19, Ms. michelle winiarski, United Kingdom
this is terrible he tore familys apart for money!

# 125

14:43, May 17, E hands, United Kingdom

# 124

09:34, May 15, Mrs. joanne kahveci, United Kingdom

# 123

04:01, May 15, Mr. Angus Ogilvy, United Kingdom
We Demand Justice for these families !!!

# 122

19:33, May 14, Sabina Heywood, United Kingdom
I think many people will now start to question what exactly has been going on here and how much more has, and indeed still is happening. The reason they are slow in investigating it is because it implicates many other so-called Profesionals involved and once they start digging it will be a real can of worms on a huge scale. JOIN ‘THE JUSTICE PARTY’ email TheJusticeParty@live.com for an application form as our first pledge is to return all children unlawfully taken from their families.

# 121

18:36, May 14, Mr. johnathon harker, United Kingdom
PUT THIS MAN BEHIND BARS HE IS SCUM AND ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY

# 120

14:26, May 14, Ms. CLARE ROBERTS, United Kingdom

# 119

14:04, May 14, Mrs. janet hussain, United Kingdom
what a dispicable man

# 118

13:53, May 14, Name not displayed, United Kingdom
disgraceful!!

# 117

13:30, May 14, Mrs. louise lewis, United Kingdom

# 115

13:21, May 14, Ms. deborah hodkinson, United Kingdom
this is awful, my friend had her child taken away for no real reason, she is the best mum. these families need re looking at that was under that mans diagnosis

# 114

13:17, May 14, Mr. Malcolm Ggilvy, United Kingdom
Misdiagnosed !!! more like the man is as sinister as could be and prolly is apart of a nation wide child stealing pedo ring ” in my opinion ” Dr George Hibbert should be jailed and stripped of all his wordly good’s and the money given to his victims and survivors of his evil abuse .

# 113

13:12, May 14, Name not displayed, United Kingdom
Children are being snatched from loving homes.. this is WRONG

# 112

13:09, May 14, Name not displayed, United Kingdom
a friend of mine sent me the link on this matter after loosing my son to adoption 6months ago thru an assessment psychologist working for social services at lancashire county council had said that i needed to have cbt and psychodynamic therapy (of which im of full and sound mind) i think i need to look further into this matter.. but i must say it wasnt dr george hibbert of whom i saw.. i know what i am going through now and i wish for justice on all families in the same situation as myself

# 111

13:02, May 14, Ms. frances greenwood, United Kingdom

# 110

12:44, May 14, Mrs. lynne eynon, United Kingdom
i think these doctors ought to spend a bit more time assessing mother and child my daughters son lives with me because a doctor said that she would neglect him. #She never has she was a happy caring mother she has a personality disorder and traits of bipolar but she is the best ma i know for him i try but he need her i think this is happening all over i know some kids get neglected but being a concerned grand parent i would keep an eye on her and him but the services said no. authorities don’t listen not all are killers and some people love their kids and that’s what keeps them going or leads them to becoming normal

# 109

12:44, May 14, Mrs. alison webb, United Kingdom

# 108

12:39, May 14, Mrs. alison kemp, United Kingdom
what a disgrace !!!

# 107

12:39, May 14, Mrs. Helen Sumner, United Kingdom

# 106

12:35, May 14, debbie jackson, United Kingdom
This Man needs to thrugk off hes detroyed too many peoples lives

# 105

04:30, May 14, Mr. andrew peacher, United Kingdom
we need to support this lady and make sure dr hibbert knows of the pain and suffering he has caused with his lies he is like professor roy medows a coward a goverment poodle and hates the dysfuctional family shame on you george no wonder the nursery ryme with george in it is relevant to him

# 104

03:29, May 14, Mr. Roger Crawford, United Kingdom
As a campaigner for many years for fathers, mothers and children, I welcome this petition. I hope you get millions of signatures! We have to stop this (this is just the tip of the iceberg) by giving every parent a right, a presumption in law, to see their children.

# 103

01:44, May 14, Mr. Norman Scarth, Ireland
Fearing further attacks by the British Stasi, & that corrupt British judges & lawyers may again seek the assistance of shrinks who are puppets of The State, at the age of 86 I have been forced to flee the land of my birth – THE LAND FOR WHICH I FOUGHT IN BLOODY BATTLE IN WORLD WAR 2 – & seek asylum abroad! Email enscarth@hotmail.com

# 102

19:27, May 13, Ms. Lisa Gilbert, United Kingdom
I lost my children because of a man like this. People like this need to be made accountable for the misery they cause.

# 101

12:59, May 13, Mr. Jerry Lonsdale, United Kingdom

• previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• next

 

See more petitions:

• Human Rights

 

• about us
• advertise
• partnerships
• careers
• press
• contact us
• terms of service
• privacy
• subscription center
• help
• rss feeds

COPYRIGHT © 2012 CARE2.COM, INC. AND ITS LICENSORS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

<script type=”text/javascript” src=”http://dingo.care2.com/petitions/embed.js”></script><div rssPath=”http://www.thepetition

Coming soon …. why express and star still report propaganda re Stafford College

Beautiful Majestic Phoenix flew in to Stafford for Olympic Torch

My response to threats from principal solicitor

Threats to myself from ss principal solicitor

A psychologist who specialises in trauma advised against therapy Social services forced me to do it stating it ‘was part of the deal’ leading me to b re-traumatised

Refusing to deal with complaints

Son abused by foster carer

Son abused by foster carer

Son abused by foster carer

Doctor predicts my death after all the trauma social services put me through

o

I was threatned with homelessness by the council because social services kept me in institutions for 11 months and while here they acknowledge domestic violence my child was placed with his father while the father was on license from prison for glassing someone in face and possession of a knife despite the fact that social services failed him in their own viability assessment

This is how my child presented after being returned to my care from foster care

Social services cause attempted suicide

Proof of Dr Hibbert and his lies

Dr Hibbert lied in his reports as reported in national media despite his diagnosis being thrown out of court ss insissted that i had to go back into a mother and baby unit this time under 24 hour supervision . My child and I spent a total of 11 months in Mental Health institutions dspite their being no concerns over my mental health or my parenting during this time my uncle who was like a father figure contracted terminal cancer i was not allowed to visit him or attend his funeral

I was conned into going to a mother and baby unit for a parenting assessment because it was not the result ss wanted i was then sent off to dr hibbert

Staffordshire social worker Sarah Peace lied to maternity ward stating there was an epo on my child when there never has been

Staffordshire ss state I am threat to their department

This is what happens when people Mess with my family . I expose and shut them down.

Dr George Andrew Hibbert. Before national media exposure this is what was on my blog Hibbert complained of defamation and wordpress set my post to private. Is the Pope a Catholic ?

February 21, 2010

Private: EXPOSING CORRUPT EXPERT WITNESS DR GEORGE HIBBERT

Filed under: Secret family courts,Staffordshire — nojusticeforparents @ 12:51 pm Edit This
Tags: Adoption, cafcass, forced adoption, foster care, social services, Staffordshire

THIS POST HAS BEEN MARKED PRIVATE BY WORDPRESS.COM STAFF IN RESPONSE TO A DEFAMATION COMPLAINT.

I cannot divulge my own case at the moment as it is currently under investigation but i believe this Dr is making alot of money by writing unfavourable reports about parents to secure that he still gets plenty of work from the secret family courts.

Organisations seeking information on him and others are

This is an urgent request for information on the experts in both Public and Private law proceedings from ELC http://www.elc.org.uk and FLINT http://www.familieslink.co.uk.We are seeking information on the following experts whom we have concern about;

Dr. George Hibbert of Tadpole cottage and Windmill Hill centers who is an adult psychiatrist.

Professor Zeitlin

Dr. Bentovim

Dr. Mumford

Further areas we are extremely worried about are play therapy, personality disorders and diagnosis, drugging children with drugs such as Ritalin and similar drugs (almost half a million UK children are on such drugs for ADHD) and Prozac.

We will accept material on all other experts working in family law and/ or with children whose procedures and actions are suspect. Please note all information will be treated confidentially and neither your family nor children will be identified but we will identify the expert and his or her allies etc. A legal letter of authority will have to be signed before we can accept the material for consideration.

Past story about his underhanded methods

Melanie’s Cornwall

County Council hell

Cornwall’s Corrupt County Council

In November Cornwall County Council

Social Services told Melanie she could

not look after her own children, and forced

her out of her parents house. Mr and Mrs

Garvey, in their 40’s and experienced parents,

with six lovely daughters of their own,

four now grown up, continued to look after

them.

In December 2005 a Dr Metcalfe put Melanie

on heavy medication for over a year

(600mg a day of Quietepane “enough to

bring a grown man to his knees”). In May

2006 social worker Ken Phillips came to

their house and left saying “I’m off on a

snatch now.” That was a foretaste of the

future.

Snatched by Ken Phillips

In June 2006, Social Services snatched

Melanie’s two children, both under four

years old, from the safety of the Garvey’s

loving family home and put them in foster

care with a view to having them adopted.

They were devastated.

A Dr Choudry wrote a report in September

2006 saying Melanie had learning

difficulties. This is extraordinary; Melanie

has 10 GCSE’s, and a City and Guilds in

hairdressing and beauty treatments. He also

accused her of substance abuse; she’s never

taken harmful substances and has hair

strand analysis reports to prove it.

Threats by Social Services

Then Melanie was told she would have

to live with her children in an assessment

centre in Swindon, Wiltshire if she wanted

them back. After a further 4 months she

passed the assessment with flying colours,

even though drugged with Quietepane

while being assessed. Cornwall County

Council said they would stop the adoption

and look for a house for Melanie. Mr

and Mrs Garvey suggested a second house

owned by a family member, and then a flat

they could rent. Cornwall County Council

rejected both.

Just before Melanie left the assessment

centre one of the staff verbally assaulted

her son and shook him violently, and Melanie

complained. Dr Hibbert, who runs the

assessment centre, changed the report from

good to bad. Ken Phillips and Dr Hibbert

got Melanie in a room and told her she had

to sign the children over for adoption or

they would be split up and put in different

foster homes. Melanie, who said she feels

like a zombie on Quietepane, still had the

sense to refuse.

Isolated and controlled

This has been the pattern; each time Melanie,

or her family, try to stand up for her,

Social Services wreak their vengeance on

Melanie tenfold. With their threats against

her children, they control her completely.

In February 2007 Melanie and the

children were moved in with a foster family

in an isolated hamlet north of Dartmoor.

There are three caged dogs in the house

which concern her. Ken Phillips has seen

them; is that why he chose that foster family?

When her family complained Phillips

visited and again threatened Melanie with

the children being moved up country and

being split up.

Rigged trial No. 1

Melanie spent the 19th to the 23rd March

2007 in Truro County Court. Cornwall

County Council had a barrage of “Expert

witnesses” falsifying their statements to

Continued on Page 6

EU methods and corruption are sweeping through our councils, courts and legal profession.Independent

Melanie’s hell from Page 1

suit the Social Services line. The trial was

effectively rigged – the only person to speak

up for Melanie was the CAF-CAS representative.

Judge Vincent ruled in favour of

the council – we ask is he incompetent or a

member of Common Purpose?

The barrister appointed for her was equally

useless, and Melanie quotes her as saying

“I’m off to get my money now; don’t worry

you’ll see your children in 16 years.” (Barristers

have to get a legal aid signature from

the court before they can be paid.)

The Judge granted Cornwall County

Council both a care order and a placement

order for adoption. Now Melanie had lost

her children, the Garveys were told she

would be taken off the Quietepane – but now

she seems to be back on it.

Injunction – Statement under duress

Social Services staff had recommended

Foot Anstey, Plymouth Solicitors to represent

Melanie. They did not seem to present

any evidence in her favour her or fight her

corner in court. In fact their main contribution

has been to write threatening letters to

Mr. Garvey, and get an injunction against

him to force him out of the proceedings and

the appeal hearing altogether, to further isolate

Melanie. She phoned to say she was under

duress when they took her statement.

Foot Anstey have completed Melanie’s

isolation; she’s cut off from all avenues of

help.

The solicitors organised an appeal on

the 9th May 2007 at the Appeal Court in

the Strand, Westminster London. The court

costs were astronomical – and delayed matters

further by ruling for a full retrial in

July. The total costs to your taxes are probably

already over a million; clearly Social

Service plan a larger jackpot on this case.

The Garvey’s have seen the Barristers fees

quoted at £35,000 resulting in one hour in

court.

Police threats to Paul Garvey

As all Paul Garvey’s attempts to get his

grandchildren back through official channels

have been blocked, he has put signs

up on the main A39 and outside his house

telling the public Cornwall County Council

are child snatchers. The police are threatening

to arrest him, and called round several

times; Mr Garvey had the good sense to be

out or hide and pretend he was out.

Demonstrating, with or without signs,

is of course not an offence. But under the

governments new legislation he could be arrested

on this trumped up charge – or indeed

no charge at all, and held for 18 days. Every

knock on the door is a worry – presumably

that was the intent behind the threat.

Malicious arrest warrant

That injunction was pure character assassination,

and prevents him from doing things

Mr Garvey would never do, but much of

which Foot Anstey are doing right now, including

harming his daughter. Mr Garvey is

now not allowed to see Melanie.

Foot Anstey then falsely accused Mr

Garvey of breaking their injunction, and set

a warrant for arrest hearing with three days

notice. Melanie was in court, guarded by

three staff, to ensure she could not get help

or speak to her family.

The trial date was set for 6th June. This

necessitates employing a solicitor to defend,

and Mr Garvey’s been quoted £5,000

in fees. The crooked solicitors’ cartel wins

again. But the simple fact is he has almost

no chance of a fair trial, with most of the

judges hand in glove with the solicitors. We

are watching perversion of the course of justice

up close.

Staff responsible for this abuse

The Director of the Social Services division

for children is Dean Ashton. He knows

all about this case. We have documentary

evidence that Cornwall County Council is

working to adoption targets – they plan to

snatch children regardless of the rights or

wrongs of the case.

Maurice Emberson is his assistant, and denied

this abuse is happening in reply to both

the front page of the Falmouth Packet newspaper,

and their columnist, the Skipper, who

rightly deplored Cornwall County Council

Social Services actions in this matter.

Alex Dashwood is Phillips’ manager,

(and stated Melanie had “a severe learning

difficulty” which is a lie.) These two seem

more like sadists than social workers, and

in our view should not be allowed to work

with children.

The council buries complaints

Mr and Mrs Garvey have been to the Council

Complaints Department. The Garveys

were warned no one who’s children have

been snatched get past the first level of three

levels, and their complaints are buried. Elisabeth

Taylor and Gill Dunstan are the Council

complaints managers.

The Head of Council Legal Services is

Richard Williams, in it are Karen Jackson,

Ian Kennaway, Deborah Stoleworthy; they

know what’s going on and allow this horror

to continue.

Mr and Mrs Garvey have been to the top –

to the Ombudsman, who won’t be involved

until the case is decided. By the time he consents

to be involved, the children are usually

adopted and its too late.

Fire these abusive staff

We ask Cornwall County Council that Dean

Aston, Maurice Emberson, Alex Dashwood,

Ken Phillips, are fired immediately without

compensation, and barred from all government

or public posts for life. It appears their

actions are closer to embezzlement and child

abuse than social work.

We ask for an investigation into the extent

to which Elisabeth Taylor, Gill Dunstan,

Richard Williams, Karen Jackson, Ian Kennaway,

Deborah Stoleworthy have perpetrated

this miscarriage of justice.

We ask that Cornwall County Council bar

members of Common Purpose, which is behind

this and most council corruption, from

both public office and employment within

the council.

We ask that Foot Anstey be barred from

all council, legal aid and public contracts

until those involved, such as Nicki Cozens,

have been dismissed from the firm, and their

fees for this “work” be withheld.

Criminal charges against social services

We ask the police and Crown Prosecution

Service to investigate all the above on

charges of abusing children and the fraudulent

misuse of public funds. Providing there

are enough honest, non Common Purpose

people left in the police and CPS to carry

out a lawful and proper investigation.

We ask that a permanent restraining order

be put on Social Services, preventing them

from contacting Melanie or her children at

any time, now or in the future.

Sheila Healy and David Whalley

The two people ultimately responsible are

Cornwall County Council’s chief Executive,

Sheila Healy, and David Whalley, the council

leader, both Common Purpose. We ask

for the resignation of both Healy and Whalley

for encouraging this horrific abuse and

fraud in scores of similar and worse cases,

to go on unchecked.

And finally we ask Cornwall County

Council that Melanie and her two children

are immediately returned to the loving family

home from which they were stolen.

Luke 17:2 “It were better for them that

a millstone were hanged about their

neck, and be cast into the sea, than

that they should harm one of these

little ones.”

http://www.freewebs.com/justjustice/socialservicesscandal.htm

other people that have contacted me comment …

Dear Jane,

Thankyou for geting back to me so fast. I have had personal experience of this Dr and believe his methadology to be flawed and harmful to those involved in the sensitive area of child care proceedings. I have a vested personal interest. I did not want to go into too much detail as I was not sure how publicly the message would be displayed. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask. I hope to hear from you soon.

Miss H

Dear Jane,

I understand your concern. I feel exactly the same. Without going into too much detail as I still worry about the privacy of emails etc. I am someone who is in the middle of care proceedings. The local autority had agreed my child was returing home and I had one assessment with this man and everything changed. I am now in court desperately fighting for my child. His report on me has been described by other professionals as “barbaric”, “flawed”, and “unorthodox”.  I hope this helps to put your mind at rest a little.

Miss H

Dear Jane,

I am so very grateful you got back to me. I thought I was on my own with all this. I can’t believe what is happening to myself and my son as a result of this man’s report. He misquoted me, generalised, some of what he wrote was tantemount to slander. He was rude to me, and had not even been supplied with the proper background information. The local authority seemed shocked when they got his report, but they had to take action as he criticised their decision to return my son to me without an “expert opinion first”. I would be very happy to discuss any part of my case with you. Maybe it would be possible to talk on the phone. Seeing your request for info on him and knowing their are others who feel the same has made a real difference to me. I hope we can stay in contact. Thankyou again.

Miss H

Hi Jane

Dr Hibbert certainly needs investigating. I believe he will not allow a government inspection team to view any of his records and he only allows them to inspect his premises. he’s probably got a lot to hide. I believe the government body is ofsted.

I hope you hear from the GMC soon. If you do get any information please let me know because it will be helpful to me.

Many thanks.

M.A.

It is of help to me me that that I know that you were in Tadpole Cottage and actually got Dr Hibberts evidence overturned. Unfortunately the information you have given me has so far not been enough to halt the process of the young lady going into Tadpole Cottage. As far as the social services are concerned they have no ‘evidence’ of any wrong doing.

A little about me I am the ex-foster carer of the young lady in question. She was with us for about 9months when she was 15yrs old. We were not given the full reasons for why she was placed in care (her first time) or I would have fought for her not to go home (she did not want to go). She has had a really bad time but from my observations and involvement with her she is an amazing mum who has just not had the love and support of her own family.

I was a foster carer for in excess of 20 years and also a family aide for 5years. I loved my job helping children and families. On more than one occasion I have had cause to disagree with social services decisions and had to act against them. One of whom said of a cleared parent that they had ‘ONLY BEEN FOUND INNOCENT IN THE EYE OF THE LAW’. For daring to do this my husband and I were ‘rested’ for about 6months for not having a full understanding of ‘the role of the social services’. There are good social workers and foster carers out there but there are also some who are really bad, who I would not trust or leave my dog with!

I have many stories about my time with social services that I have decided to write and talk about when this case is over. There are some good stories but they are are outweighed by sad ones.

I have been on the freedom of information sight that you have used. (it came up when I typed in Dr Hibbert and Tadpole Cottage). I will follow this to see if you get all the information you need.

I don’t know if you can answer this for me, but when your baby was taken away did you immediately appeal? Having met Dr Hibbert I am amazed that you have done so well. Have you done all the research and represented yourself? or do you have a very good solicitor and/or barrister.

When you have finished with your case (hopefully you will win) I would really be obliged if you could let me know the outcome as I feel we may have to go down the same road.

Thank you

Cathy

Jane , I found your comments whilst looking for information

about Dr George Hibbert and Tadpole Cottage. I have concerns after

a visit with a young mother who might be going into tadpole cottage

with her baby and would like to know of any information there is

available. I am worried as we feel she could be being ‘set up to

fail’. Do you know where I can find any statistics for his success

rate?

Yours,

Ms Fromow

The following is an article from Pink Tape who even after mainstream media wrote a very biased article.

Research by Dr Hibbert

Shrinking the Lawyers

January 19, 2008 by familoo

There is a really interesting article in the December issue of Family Law (Fam Law [2007] 1107) entitled ‘Attachment Problems Among Lawyers’. In it Dr George Hibbert, a consultant Psychiatrist, writes about the issue of attachment in the family courts.

.

Ordinarily family lawyers come across attachment theory in expert court reports, particularly in care proceedings, where the attachment between parent and child is explored, and often attachment problems in children are identified. This article however looks at the impact of attachment issues in litigant parents and legal professionals may affect or be affected by the legal process.

.

Its easy to see that in cases where there are difficulties in parenting leading to attachment problems in a child there is likely to be an element of attachment difficulty in the parent(s) perhaps arising from their own childhood and experience of being parented. Where else do we learn how to parent but from our own parents – for better or for worse. And family lawyers have much first hand experience of how a parent’s own psychological and emotional makeup or difficulties impacts upon their ability to handle and understand the court process and to work with and get the most from their lawyers. The family court system is difficult to handle for most of us, but as this article rightly points out it is the challenging, probing nature of the family court system into the very private or very personal, and the constraints of the formal process which litigants find extremely hard to accept or work within.

.

What is most interesting however, is Dr Hibbert’s remarks about attachment problems in lawyers themselves, particularly the susceptibility of some lawyers to manipulation by dyfunctional clients with their own attachment issues. He suggests that clients with attachment difficulties may be expert at manipulating the feelings of other including their lawyers. I for one certainly recognise the scenario where a lawyer loses his or her objectivity and is unable to maintain a professional distance from the client. It often results in aggressive or inappropriate behaviour in discussions and negotiations between counsel and an inability to properly consider proposals for compromise. It appears to affect some lawyers in particular cases, whilst other lawyers adopt this over-personalised approach to counsel-to-counsel discussions as a feature of their representational style, taking on the persona of their client, and taking points against them as personal affronts. My heart sinks when I receive and read a brief which is full of righteous outrage on behalf of the hard-done by client – this is often a portent of a one-sided approach to the case which blinds the solicitor to the weaknesses of the case and puts counsel in the insidious position of having to impart bad news without support from the solicitor. For some lawyers this approach to client care appears to be a deliberate choice, the result of a belief that believeing a client or accepting their point of view is a core part of the professional service. I tend to disagree – the job of a lawyer, of counsel in particular, is to advise the client objectively and to represent the clients view or interests as best as is possible, regardless of one’s own opinion or viewpoint. Often that involves telling a client extremely unpalatable things, which can put a strain on a professional relationship. That however is far better than the decidedly unpleasant experience of explaining after the event why something utterly unexpected has happened to a client whose unrealistic expectations have not been tempered in advance.

.

Dr Hibbert cautions against becoming drawn in by clients, on becoming too emotionally involved in a case to meet one’s own emotional or attachment needs. I am sure that this is a real danger for even the most psychologically stable of us, and I for one can recognise cases where I have been far more strongly affected and more heavily invested in the outcome than in others, none thankfully where I think I have overstepped the invisible line. I for one find it hard to identify why a particular case has drawn me in and affected me, but I do recognise it when it happens. And in my experience this heightened empathy is as often for the family as a whole or the children as it is for the parent-client him/herself.

.

Where I begin to disagree with Dr Hibbert’s article is this: he says that a professional who is seriously affected by the client’s attachment behaviour ‘will no longer be able to assist the court in finding a good solution for the children because he / she has become an extension of the dysfunctional client..[and]…the professional’s greater articulacy, knowledge of the system and professional weight add credibility and power to the client’s dysfunctional voice’. I think this is to confuse the role of expert, whose role is to give their opinion by way of advice to the court, with the role of lawyer, whose role is precisely to amplify the client’s voice (dysfunctional or not) without regard to their own opinion. It is the role of the court, having heard all the expert evidence and all the representations made on behalf of the various parties (all of whom will have a lawyer representing their own view of the matter with equal force), to decide what is right decision. Not only is it not part of our role as professionals to judge our client’s viewpoint, but we are simply not qualified to properly assess how dysfunctional our clients are save in the most crude way based upon our day-to-day experience.

.

Towards the end of his article, Dr Hibbert goes so far as to warn us against being drawn by clients ‘into complicity with continued child abuse’.All of us in the family courts want the best for the children involved in these sorry cases. But we also want what is best for our clients. And we are employed to do our best to represent that client. It is the Judge who is paid to bear the burden of ensuring that the child’s interests are met. I am not sure if this was the intention but the article appears to suggest that in doing our job properly and with equal vigour for the sensible and the misguided, the balanced and the dysfunctional, we may should be critised as complicit with child abuse. That is an unfair burden to place upon lawyers and the wrong approach to parents – it is perhaps those parents with the biggest emotional and psychological problems who need most to have assistance from lawyers in order to articulate their position and wishes clearly, and to ensure that the decision of the court is based upon a proper and full exploration of all the factors bearing upon a complex case.

http://pinktape.co.uk/2008/01/19/shrinking-the-lawyers/

Here he does not allow Ofsted access to client records ……….. mmmm suspicious I wonder why ?

The inspection took place over two days and was conducted by two inspectors. Written

information was provided in advance and other material was seen during the inspection

including staff personnel files and the centre log books. The inspectors were able to tour the

premises and had access to residents and staff.

The inspectors did not have access to individual resident’s case files. Prior to the inspection

a lead solicitor challenged the right of the inspectors to have access to their clients’ personal

information without applying for leave of the court. Dr Hibbert confirmed that he had received

the same legal advice and therefore that he felt unable to allow inspectors to have direct

access to any of the three residents case files. This significantly limited the depth and range

of the inspection. A Commission legal advisor has been consulted over the action that

should now be taken.

Purpose and Function (Standard 1)

This Standard was not met

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ofsted.gov.uk%2Fprovider%2Ffiles%2F1590355%2Furn%2FSC045018.pdf&ei=GKHFT_SfMs33sgaI6NDDAw&usg=AFQjCNGDwpTqEP1PZafBLltXHPUiIvKVPg&sig2=qSSXt3u0BEnC90uOdtCYGg

And here he is again with his cannabis company

Pot luck for celebrities

Cannabis grower made fortunes for early supporters but others feel let down

• Share0
• http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1337330192.html#_=1338352541660&count=horizontal&counturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2001%2Faug%2F16%2F10&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2001%2Faug%2F16%2F10&related=businessdesk&size=m&text=Cannabis%20company%20flotation%20'poorly%20handled'&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F4ghp%2Ftw&via=guardian
• https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv=pr&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2001%2Faug%2F16%2F10&size=medium&count=true&hl=en-GB&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fgapi%2F__features__%2Frt%3Dj%2Fver%3DHrbac2B7wPs.en.%2Fsv%3D1%2Fam%3D!gFuVl93svF6I1poz5g%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAItRSTO9Vm3UWk_Xm5K-dhsSuubKOkOgzw#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart&id=I0_1338352528862&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk
• Email

• Andrew Clark
• The Guardian, Thursday 16 August 2001 01.55 BST

A champion jockey, a 1970s pop star and a roll-call of expert advocates for the legalisation of soft drugs were among the private backers of GW Pharmaceuticals, the firm developing drugs from cannabis.

According to documents filed at Companies House, GW was supported prior to its £175m flotation in June by a list of prominent people, many of whom saw the value of their investments surge five-fold in the public offering.

GW’s flotation infuriated analysts and fund managers, who claim the offering was hyped and over-priced.

Immediately after the flotation, shares in GW went into freefall as investors dumped stock. The price has dropped 44%, triggering accusations that the public offering was poorly handled.

GW is Britain’s biggest legal grower of cannabis, with more than 40,000 plants under guard at a secret location in the south of England. Although its flotation was six times over-subscribed, the firm has received a mauling in the City since. One analyst described GW as “an incredibly over-priced greenhouse”.

Among GW’s biggest backers was Colin Blackbourn, a trader at Shore Capital who is known in the City as the Black Prince for his ability to pick small investments. Mr Blackbourn invested £147,000 in GW early last year, then saw his shares valued at £765,000 on flotation.

John Francome, winner of seven National Hunt titles, was another beneficiary, investing about £20,000 in GW prior to flotation. Now a television commentator, he was introduced to GW by a young jockey whose family had an interest in the business.

‘It’s cheap at the moment’

“I wouldn’t know a drug if it was sitting in front of me,” Mr Francome says. “But I think GW’s a great idea. If you can help people who are ill, that’s a good thing.”

Unusually, GW had almost no institutional backing before going public. Most of the shares were held by individuals. David Dundas, best known for his 1970s hit Jeans On, had 39,984 shares on flotation, worth £72,000. He paid less than £25,000 for the stock in a private fundraising by GW last November.

The son of the Marquess of Zetland, Dundas’s work includes composing the four-note jingle used to introduce Channel Four programmes. He says: “I just heard through a friend of the things GW was doing. I liked the company and, long term, I think it’s going to be a good one.”

Under licence from the Home Office, GW began trials of a cannabis-based mouthspray last year. The company’s admirers say that if clinical trials are successful the commercial potential could be vast. Garry Waanders, an analyst at stockbroker Peel, Hunt, believes sales of GW’s cannabis-based treatment for multiple sclerosis could reach £250m by 2004, and he values the business at £400m. “I think it’s very cheap at the moment.”

But a recent move towards wholesale decriminalisation of cannabis has damaged the investment case, raising the possibility that patients could simply grow their own. GW rejects this, insisting that smoking cannabis is much less effective than its purified form of cannabinoids, the active ingredient inside the drug.

GW’s founder, former hospital doctor Geoffrey Guy, has lobbied the government hard to permit prescriptions of cannabis-based drugs. He says the Home Office has pledged that if GW’s clinical trials are successful ministers will reschedule cannabis to permit its use in pharmaceuticals.

Other private backers include Lady Angela Chadwyck-Healey, a noted art collector. She paid £98,000 in spring 2000 for shares which were valued in June’s flotation at £509,000.

Philip Robson, a psychiatrist at Chilton Clinic, Oxford, is on the shareholder register alongside his colleague George Hibbert. Dr Robson, an advocate of decriminalisation, is the author of “Forbidden drugs: understanding drugs and why people take them”, a respected work on the subject. Another investor is Arnold Cragg of market research firm Cragg Ross Dawson, which analyses the government’s anti-drugs messages.

City names include David and Guy Mace, the brothers who used to run leisure firm Vardon, which owned the London Dungeon and the Sea Life centre.

Venture capitalists Peter Mountford and Adrian Bradshaw of Bradmount Investments, which backed the Aim-listed firm Internet Direct, are big personal backers. Mr Mountford and his family had 480,000 shares on flotation, worth £873,000, while Mr Bradshaw had 240,000 shares, worth £435,000. They bought their stakes for £300,000 and £150,000 respectively in November.

Stephen Noar, the entrepreneur who purchased Geoffrey Robinson’s Lutyens mansion in Hampshire for about £5m last year, was another investor in GW’s November fundraising. His family paid £525,000 for shares which were valued on flotation eight months later at £1.5m.

The huge paper profits made by these pre-float investors will frustrate those who bought shares in the public offering, only to see an immediate slump in the price.

GW blames misinterpretation of a report in the British Medical Journal which questioned the effectiveness of cannabis in treating pain. The company says this had few implications for its cannabinoids.

Others suggest that the price has fallen because private investors were not locked in after flotation. There has been criticism, too, of the small number of shares handed out to each institutional investor on flotation by broker Collins Stewart. Some fund managers, it is alleged, were left with such small parcels that they decided the equity was not worth hanging on to.

One analyst said: “People were promised that it would be over-subscribed, and it would double on its first day. That’s the only reason why a lot of them took it.”

Jonathan Kwok, a biotechnology analyst at Old Mutual Securities, said: “The shares were definitely overpriced when the company went to the market.”

GW’s management declined to discuss the flotation yesterday. A spokesman said the big profits made by private investors were “not atypical of pre-float finance”, and only a small number of early backers had sold after the offering.”Clearly, the performance of the stock post-flotation has been disappointing and the company shares that disappointment.”

Andrew Richmond of Collins Stewart rejects the idea that the flotation was hyped, maintaining that it was handled no differently from any other offering.

GW’s shares rose 0.5p to 103.5p yesterday, against a flotation price of 182p. The share price has been sluggish despite news this week that the firm has begun trials of its cannabis spray in Canada, where medicinal use of the drug has just been legalised. Chief executive Geoffrey Guy has little to smile about following the share price fall: the value of his personal stake has dropped from £47m to £26m.

On September 7, the firm expects to announce detailed results of its latest clinical trials. As far as investors are concerned, they had better be stunningly good.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/aug/16/10

• 0Share
• http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1337330192.html#_=1338352541922&count=vertical&counturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2001%2Faug%2F16%2F10&id=twitter-widget-2&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2001%2Faug%2F16%2F10&related=businessdesk&size=m&text=Cannabis%20company%20flotation%20'poorly%20handled'&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F4ghp%2Ftw&via=guardian
• https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv=pr&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2001%2Faug%2F16%2F10&size=tall&count=true&hl=en-GB&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fgapi%2F__features__%2Frt%3Dj%2Fver%3DHrbac2B7wPs.en.%2Fsv%3D1%2Fam%3D!gFuVl93svF6I1poz5g%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAItRSTO9Vm3UWk_Xm5K-dhsSuubKOkOgzw#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart&id=I1_1338352528873&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk

• 
• 
• 
• 

Article history

Business

Related

• 4 Aug 2001

  Analysts complain of cannabis high

• 1 May 2008

  System leaves growers without a voice, says farmer who got out

• 8 Aug 2007

  Pot shots

• 22 Dec 2009

  Massive bet on RBS and Lloyds helped financier earn $2.5bn

• 
  

Wednesday, May 30 2012 6AM  15°C 9AM 20°C 5-Day Forecast

The doctor who broke up families: Psychiatrist who damned hundreds as ‘unfit parents’ faces GMC probe

• Dr George Hibbert could be struck off over his conclusions that hundreds of parents had ‘personality disorders’
• Millionaire is now being investigated over shocking suggestions he distorted the assessments to fit the view of social services
• Lib Dem MP writes to Justice Secretary Ken Clarke demanding a full parliamentary inquiry

By KATHERINE FAULKNER

PUBLISHED: 22:41, 16 March 2012 | UPDATED: 09:24, 17 March 2012

Extraordinary: Dr George Hibbert faces claims he deliberately misdiagnosed parents with mental disorders – decisions which meant their children were taken away from them

A leading psychiatrist faces extraordinary claims he deliberately misdiagnosed parents with mental disorders – decisions which meant their children were taken away from them.

Dr George Hibbert faces being struck off over his conclusions that hundreds had ‘personality disorders’ after assessing them at his private family centre.

He was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by social services for the reports which tore children from their parents – many of them young mothers.

He is now being investigated over shocking suggestions he distorted the assessments to fit the view of social services.

In one case, he is alleged to have wrongly diagnosed a ‘caring’ new mother –  named only as Miss A – with bipolar disorder because her local authority wanted the  baby adopted.

After being confronted with this allegation, Dr Hibbert offered to surrender his licence to practise as a doctor rather than face a General Medical Council inquiry.

But his request has been rejected by the GMC which says there are still ‘unresolved concerns regarding his fitness to practise’. He will now face a full fitness to practise hearing.

Yesterday John Hemming MP, who has raised concerns about Dr Hibbert in Parliament, described the claims as shocking.

The Lib Dem MP – alerted by a whistle-blower – said he had since spoken to ‘three or four’ other families who said the same had happened to them.

He has written to Justice Secretary Ken Clarke demanding a full parliamentary inquiry.

Mr Hemming said: ‘He is someone about whom a number of people have complained. I am told that at least one person has refused to work for him because of what she saw as his unethical provision of reports to suit the demands of local authorities.

Rich: Two Porsches can be seen parked outside the home of Dr Hibbert near Swindon. He is worth more than £2.7million

‘Much of the decision making in care proceedings rests on reports from experts such as Dr Hibbert,’ he told Parliament.

He added that supposedly independent experts such as Dr Hibbert, 59, were often little more than ‘the hired gun of the local authority’.

The lack of transparency over such experts was leading to ‘thousands of miscarriages of justice in care proceedings’.

Earlier this week, a study for the Family Justice Council revealed how life-changing decisions about the care of children are routinely being made on the basis of flawed evidence. A fifth of ‘experts’ who advise the family courts are unqualified.

Dr Hibbert charged local authorities £6,000 a week for every family in his care and £210 an hour just to read documents such as medical records.

By 2007 his company, Assessment in Care, was making a profit of around £460,000 a year from  his lucrative arrangement with social services.

He is now worth more than  £2.7million. Last night a black Porsche Turbo, thought to be worth around £120,000, and a grey Porsche 911 Carrera, worth around £80,000, were parked on the gravel driveway outside his £500,000 country cottage.

A former honorary lecturer at Oxford University, who has previously advised the government on care assessments, Dr Hibbert left the NHS to set up his private assessment centre in 2000.

Since then, hundreds of parents in contact with social services – usually mothers and babies – have been referred to his centre to  be assessed.

Concerns were first raised in 2007, when mother Miss A complained that Dr Hibbert had wrongly diagnosed her with a bipolar disorder.

One consultant psychiatrist accused Dr Hibbert of having ‘no evidence’ for some of his claims and of deliberately ‘exaggerating’ and ‘misrepresenting’ aspects of the woman’s behaviour.

Her report is among a number of documents being examined by the GMC with regards to Dr Hibbert.

Miss A, who has seen her son just a few times since, said Dr Hibbert was ‘corrupt and evil.’

‘Nothing will ever make up for what he has done to me and my child,’ Miss A said. ‘I want to make sure this man is exposed and that he can never do this to anybody else.’

In a letter sent to Miss A, a GMC investigations officer confirmed Dr Hibbert ‘has now applied for voluntary erasure from the medical register’.

In demand: Dr Hibbert was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by social services for reports which tore children from their parents – many of them young mothers

The letter continued: ‘He has no intention of returning to clinical practice in the future.’

However, the GMC officer concluded it was in the ‘public interest’ for his request to be denied ‘in view of the nature of the performance allegations and in the view of the conduct concerns.’

He has not been available for comment at his two-storey detached cottage in the small village of Blunsdon near Swindon. His assessment centre next to his home appeared to be closed.

A spokesman for Dr Hibbert at the Medical Protection Society, the indemnity organisation for doctors, said professional confidentiality meant Dr Hibbert was ‘unable to comment on allegations raised in relation to care of a patient’.

Paul Grant, of Bernard Chill & Axtell Solicitors, who represents Miss A, said: ‘Our client has instructed us to launch proceedings against Dr Hibbert and the local authority.

‘We believe this distressing case may be the tip of a very big iceberg.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116175/The-doctor-broke-families-Psychiatrist-damned-hundreds-unfit-parents-faces-GMC-probe.html

Doctor ‘distorted diagnoses for local authorities’

A consultant psychiatrist is being investigated over claims that he distorted his assessment of patients to suit the demands of local authorities, it was reported last night.

Dr George Hibbert

Dr George Hibbert faces being struck off after he allegedly misdiagnosed parents as suffering from personality disorders, it is alleged. In one case, he is claimed to have concluded that a new mother, named only as Miss A, had bipolar disorder because the local social services department wanted her child to be adopted, according to the Daily Mail.

Lawyers acting on behalf of Miss A confirmed that they had been instructed to begin proceedings against Dr Hibbert and the local authority.

Paul Grant, of Bernard Chill & Axtell Solicitors, who represents Miss A, said: “We believe this distressing case may be the tip of a very big iceberg.”

John Hemming, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, who has raised concerns about Dr Hibbert in Parliament, said he had spoken to “three or four” other families who had had a similar experience. He has written to Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, demanding a full parliamentary inquiry. Referring to Dr Hibbert, Miss A said: “Nothing will ever make up for what he has done to me and my child.”

Mr Hemming told Parliament: “He [Dr Hibbert] is someone about whom a number of people have complained. I am told that at least one person has refused to work for him because of what she saw as his unethical provision of reports to suit the demands of local authorities.”

He added that experts such as Dr Hibbert, 59, were often little more than “the hired gun of the local authority”.

Dr Hibbert charged local authorities £6,000 a week for every family in his care and £210 an hour to read documents such as medical records. His company, Assessment in Care, made a profit of around £460,000 in 2007 from its arrangement with social services.

In a letter to Miss A, a GMC investigations officer said that Dr Hibbert “has now applied for voluntary erasure from the medical register”. “He has no intention of returning to clinical practice in the future,” the letter added.

A spokesman for the Medical Protection Society, the indemnity organisation for doctors, said professional confidentiality meant that Dr Hibbert was unable to comment on the allegations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9149928/Doctor-distorted-diagnoses-for-local-authorities.html

HOME > NEWS / SHOWBIZ > UK NEWS > Doctor faces adoptions scandal axe

UK NEWS

DOCTOR FACES ADOPTIONS SCANDAL AXE

A psychiatrist faces being struck off over claims he misdiagnosed parents to please social workers

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?action=recommend&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D6%23cb%3Df20ce33b34%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.express.co.uk%252Ff45b61b54%26domain%3Dwww.express.co.uk%26relation%3Dparent.parent&extended_social_context=false&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.express.co.uk%2Fposts%2Fview%2F308835&layout=standard&locale=en_US&node_type=link&sdk=joey&show_faces=true&width=300

Sunday March 18,2012

By Ted Jeory

 Have your say(6)

A WEALTHY psychiatrist who faces being struck off over claims he deliberately misdiagnosed parents to please social workers once tried to persuade a committee of MPs to make his techniques a national standard, the Sunday Express can reveal.

Porsche driving Dr George Hibbert is under investigation by the General Medical Council over claims he falsified psychiatric reports on parents so he could rake in business from local authorities.

It is claimed he misdiagnosed parents with mental disorders so that social services could persuade judges to issue care orders.

It is thought many children have been taken away from their natural parents and adopted with new families for life in what could be one of Britain’s biggest scandals.

Dr Hibbert’s Assessment in Care business earned hundreds of thousands of pounds by charging councils around the country £6,000 a week for each parent in his care.

The Sunday Express, which has led the way in exposing dangers of relying on single expert witness testimony in court proceedings, can now reveal that such was his confidence in his lucrative work that he supplied evidence to the Justice Select Committee two years ago.

Porsche driving Dr George Hibbert is under investigation by the General Medical Council over claims he falsified psychiatric reports on parents so he could rake in business from local authorities

He and family solicitor Jill Canvin, who lives with him at his country home in Wiltshire, produced a dossier for MPs in August 2010 in which they boasted the merits of their methods.

They said the Government would save £125million a year if it adopted their Tadpole Parenting Assessment software, named after their Tadpole Cottage assessment centre.

They said their techniques should be the basis for a national standard for social services so that delays and administration in the family court system could be reduced.

“We have a proposal which would provide a rational basis for [Court] Guardians to reduce their workload,” they said, adding: “This would be achieved by enabling social services to make more consistent, reliable and fair assessments of parenting.”

SEARCH UK NEWS for:

They told MPs that their recognition of the “poor” standard of social services was “endorsed” by Barnardo’s , which was at that time headed by Martin Narey, who is now the Coalition’s Adoption Tsar and acclaimed by David Cameron.

Dr Hibbert and Ms Canvin said their methods should be run in a pilot scheme that would test the IQs of parents and monitor their behaviour.

They sell their Tadpole Parenting Assessment via their website.

As a result of the GMC investigation, a lawyer acting for a mother known for legal reasons as ‘Miss A’, who had her child removed after she says she was misdiagnosed with bipolar by Dr Hibbert, now believes a massive class action against the Government is in store.

Paul Grant, of Bernard Chill & Axtell Solicitors, said he had already been contacted by several other parents who have been allegedly misdiagnosed by experts like Dr Hibbert all over the country.

He said: “This is a wider problem than just one case. These experts start out as clinicians but then they seem to get corrupted by money and the commercial opportunities.”

Lib Dem MP John Hemming has through the pages of the Sunday Express previously called for a national inquiry into the use of single expert testimonies in court proceedings because he believes they can be “hired hands doing their masters’ bidding”.

Neither Dr Hibbert nor Ms Canvin could be contacted, but a spokesman for the psychiatrist at the Medical Protection Agency, the indemnity organisation for doctors, said professional confidentiality meant Dr Hibbert was “unable to comment on allegations raised in relation to care of a patient”.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/308835/Doctor-faces-adoptions-scandal-axe-Doctor-faces-adoptions-scandal-axe-Doctor-faces-adoptions-scandal-axe-Doctor-faces-adoptions-scandal-axe-Doctor-faces-adoptions-scandal-axe-Doctor-faces-adoptions-scandal-axe

• Home
• News
• U.S.
• Sport
• TV&Showbiz
•   Femail
• Health
• Science
• Money
• RightMinds
• Coffee Break
• Travel
• Columnists

• Femail Home
• Jubilee
• Food
• Pictures
• Femail Boards
• Fashion Store
• Beauty
• MyDish Recipe Finder
• Baby Blog
• Deals

• My Profile
• Logout

Find a Job M&S Wine Our Papers Feedback

Wednesday, May 30 2012 6AM  15°C 9AM 20°C 5-Day Forecast

‘I never saw him observing parents with children’: The woman who said she was forced to take babies from their mothers by the ‘expert’ who played God

• Keira Roberts worked for Dr George Hibbert at Family Assessment Centre in Swindon
• He set parents odd tasks, like changing a car tyre while caring for a child
• Keira: ‘We had to put only bad things in our reports’
• Dr Hibbert made more than £40,000 a week

By KATHERINE FAULKNER

PUBLISHED: 23:16, 27 April 2012 | UPDATED: 08:55, 28 April 2012

• Comments (110)
• Share
• • https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv=pr&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Ffemail%2Farticle-2136388%2FDr-George-Hibbert-worker-I-saw-observing-parents-children-The-woman-said-forced-babies-mothers-expert-played-God.html&size=medium&count=true&hl=en-GB&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fgapi%2F__features__%2Frt%3Dj%2Fver%3DHrbac2B7wPs.en.%2Fsv%3D1%2Fam%3D!gFuVl93svF6I1poz5g%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAItRSTO9Vm3UWk_Xm5K-dhsSuubKOkOgzw#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart&id=I0_1338350774391&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk
  • http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1337330192.html#_=1338350780784&count=horizontal&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Ffemail%2Farticle-2136388%2FDr-George-Hibbert-worker-I-saw-observing-parents-children-The-woman-said-forced-babies-mothers-expert-played-God.html&size=m&text=Dr%20George%20Hibbert%20worker%3A%20’I%20never%20saw%20him%20observing%20parents%20with%20children’.%20The%20woman%20who%20said%20she%20…&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FIejdaL&via=MailOnline
  • http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=146202712090395&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D6%23cb%3Df27d92d5fc%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%252Ffef72f0c8%26domain%3Dwww.dailymail.co.uk%26relation%3Dparent.parent&extended_social_context=false&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Ffemail%2Farticle-2136388%2FDr-George-Hibbert-worker-I-saw-observing-parents-children-The-woman-said-forced-babies-mothers-expert-played-God.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_GB&node_type=link&sdk=joey&send=false&show_faces=false&width=90

‘Playing God’: Dr George Hibbert specialised in helping local authorities identify dangerous or neglectful parents

Anyone who works in child protection will tell you that one of the worst aspects of the job is having to take a youngster from its mother’s arms, possibly for ever.

It is heart-breaking enough, even when you are 100 per cent sure that being taken into care is the best thing for that child. But what if you are forcibly removing a child from a mother you believe to be a good and caring parent?

Keira Roberts never imagined that she would find herself in such a position when she accepted a job with an eminent psychiatrist who specialised in helping local authorities identify dangerous or neglectful parents.

Dr George Hibbert was regarded as one of country’s leading experts on child abuse, had lectured at Oxford and had advised MPs on the family courts system.

When Keira agreed to work for him, it was at one of his Family Assessment Centres — places where families who had come to the attention of social services departments were referred. They were placed under round-the-clock observation while it was determined what should happen next.

It was a very intrusive set-up, but Keira assumed that Dr Hibbert — who was highly trusted (and very well paid) by a string of local authorities — knew what he was doing.

And in the wake of the Baby P scandal, she understood how important it was for any concerns about parental abuse to be acted on.

But protecting children is one thing. Ripping families apart — apparently for little reason — is another. Yet this is what Keira claims Dr Hibbert did, and on a scale that is staggering.

From the Mail, March 17

Alarm bells first started ringing when she felt Dr Hibbert wanted his staff to concentrate on recording only the negative aspects of what they observed.

And she became dismayed when the parents were set bizarre and, she felt, unfair tasks, to assess how they coped.

She watched one young mum struggle to vacuum the stairs while carrying a baby. Another was sent off to the supermarket with her child in tow to grapple alone with a huge shop for 14 people.

But her bemusement at Dr Hibbert’s methods turned to horror when she realised that when parents ‘failed’ to complete these tasks to Dr Hibbert’s high (or ‘impossible’, as she puts it) standards, it counted against them and their children were being taken.

More…

• Disabled woman who is prisoner at home posts YouTube video slamming housing chiefs
• Greedy ex-union boss jailed for 4 years after stealing £150,000 from charity care home for miners just to do up his home

And what haunts her is that she was sometimes the one doing the forcible removal of the children.

The case that still keeps her awake at night involved a young mother called Anna — a woman Keira had been observing for 14 weeks, and considered a good mother. She had come from a difficult background, but there was no evidence that she was abusive or neglectful towards her child.

Under investigation: Dr George Hibbert, pictured outside the Family Assessment Centre in Swindon

Indeed, Keira was impressed with what a good job she did of caring for her baby.

Yet at five o’clock one morning when she was working at the assessment centre, Keira was confronted by a sobbing Anna. She was cradling her baby, rocking from side to side and weeping uncontrollably, and begging for Keira’s help.

‘She was convinced she was going home without her baby because she thought she had failed. She was hysterical. She kept asking: “Don’t you think I am a good mother?” I did, but there was nothing I could do. Dr Hibbert had made his decision.’

‘When I was watching the parents in the same room, I would sip water or do a crossword so they wouldn’t feel too watched’

Eventually, Keira was the one who had to take the baby from her arms. ‘It was the worst thing I have ever had to do,’ she says.

But Anna wasn’t an isolated case. Quite how routinely babies were removed from their parents as a result of Dr Hibbert’s practices is not yet known. But Keira was not the only one to fear that her boss was abusing his powers.

Earlier this year, Dr Hibbert offered to surrender his doctor’s licence when the General Medical Council launched an investigation over accusations that he had deliberately misdiagnosed mothers as suffering from mental disorders to fit in with the view of social services.

The GMC refused to accept Dr Hibbert’s offer, and is investigating his fitness to practise.

This is the first time a member of his staff has come forward to talk about what they say went on inside one of his assessment centres.

Keira spent over a year working for Dr Hibbert at Windmill House, Swindon. Her account — given on the condition we protect her identity — paints a horrifying picture of the lives of the parents he told the family courts were ‘unfit’ to look after their children.

How many families were ripped apart by Dr Hibbert is not known, but Keira confirms there must be ‘many’.

From the Mail, April 14

Between four and eight families would live at Windmill House at any one time, with Keira and her colleagues watching them 24 hours a day, scrutinising their every interaction with their babies.

It was ‘just like the Big Brother house, she says, ‘but 100 times worse because they knew if they did something that was deemed wrong, they risked losing their child.’

Even at night, Keira claims, staff listened in to their parenting — and, in the case of couples, their intimate conversations — using baby monitors.

She says mothers were not even allowed to breastfeed in private. ‘I always felt it was very intrusive,’ Keira says.

‘When I was watching the parents in the same room, I would sip water or do a crossword so they wouldn’t feel too watched.’

Perhaps such intrusion could have been justified had honest observations about the parents’ interaction with their children been made.

Keira says things started in a balanced way, with staff being told to write, in the margins of their copious notes, a small ‘G’ for good parenting, ‘B’ for bad or ‘R’ for routine.

But later, she says, they understood they should write down only the bad aspects of parenting they observed.

She says: ‘Dr Hibbert said: “All I want, all I need you to do is highlight anything that’s bad.” We did not include any good parenting because the courts would take it as read.’

Staff were horrified, believing this was going to give a ‘skewed view’.

‘I don’t think anyone thought it was right,’ Keira says, ‘but he said we had to cut down the amount of paperwork we were giving him.’

Another of Dr Hibbert’s methods was to set the parents bizarre tasks, such as changing a car tyre while caring for a child.

‘The assessments were ludicrous,’ Keira says. ‘A lot of the staff said that if we found ourselves in their situation, we’d fail. It was a totally unrealistic, false environment.’

Incredibly, though, the mothers would often succeed against all odds. ‘They were so desperate to pass,’ Keira recalls quietly.

While she and her colleagues had to watch the parents round the clock, Keira claims Dr Hibbert was rarely at Windmill House.

Staff would occasionally see him driving in and out of the car park in one of his two Porsches — one black, one silver — or popping into the office to pick up one of his designer suits, which staff would have dry-cleaned.

But Keira claims she ‘never’ saw the psychiatrist actually observing parents with their children before he wrote his reports for the family courts — which would be extraordinary if this was always the case considering this was a man charging the taxpayer thousands for an ‘intensive and multi-faceted assessment’ of a mother over 12 weeks.

Rich: Two Porsches can be seen parked outside the home of Dr Hibbert near Swindon. At one point in 2010, when he had 11 residents in the centre at one time, Dr Hibbert was raking in more than £40,000 a week

‘In the year I was there, I never once saw him watch a parent with their child,’ says Keira. ‘It was ridiculous. How can he have had an expert opinion on their parenting if he didn’t even observe it?’

Dr Hibbert accepted he limited his direct interactions with parents because of the powerful effects he believed that could have.

Yet few would have suspected how little he seems to have observed people parenting their children.

Not only that, the sums Dr Hibbert charged for his family assessments are staggering. The courts were paying him thousands of pounds a week for his opinion.

Each parent and child at the unit earned him £4,100 per week. This rose to £6,150 per week for a couple and a baby, or £8,200 for a couple with two children.

At one point in 2010, when he had 11 residents in the centre at one time, Dr Hibbert was raking in more than £40,000 a week — plus the £210 he charged for every hour he had to read the parents’ paperwork.

His bill was split between local authorities, the child’s legal representative and the parents’ legally-aided solicitor. Public money in other words.

Despite their huge costs, Dr Hibbert’s assessments appear to have relied to a great extent on notes made by his staff — some as young as 19.

‘We weren’t experts, none of us were,’ Keira confirms. ‘Some were totally unqualified. Yet we were the ones actually watching the parents with their children’

Keira insists Dr Hibbert usually saw parents for no more than 20 minutes per week. The workers — who were paid a starting salary of £16,500 a year — were left to observe the parenting for him.

‘We weren’t experts, none of us were,’ Keira confirms. ‘Some were totally unqualified. Yet we were the ones actually watching the parents with their children.’

With parents paying for their own food, and made to do all the cooking and cleaning themselves, workers often commented that Dr Hibbert ‘must be raking it in’ from his family assessment centre. Yet this was just one of his many lucrative sidelines.

He also made a fortune attending court as an expert witness — which he charged an eye-watering £1,800 per day. Incredibly, he even invoiced £105 per hour just for the time he spent travelling to and from court — plus 45p per mile for petrol.

‘I don’t know how often he went to court, but it was about once a month,’ Keira remembers. He was not, Keira says, a caring employer. She claims he was subject to ‘foul moods’ and prone to ‘stomping about’ if he as angry. She describes him as an ‘intimidating presence’.

‘He looked down on me,’ she says. ‘He was more intelligent, he was the one who knew everything —  we were just his lackeys. I had never come across someone who was quite so full of himself. He  also thought he was God’s gift  to women.’

In the year she worked at the centre, a number of staff resigned over what Keira believes were concerns about Dr Hibbert.

And it wasn’t long before she began to have serious doubts. ‘With some mothers, it didn’t seem to matter what we wrote,’ she says. ‘He seemed to have made his mind up about them from the beginning.’

Others, she felt, were criticised ‘for nothing’.

One young father was accused of having ‘paedophilic tendencies’ after staff observed him lying on the floor with his daughter watching television.

Another was said to have an ‘intrusive’ parenting style because he liked to tickle his baby daughter — something Keira says the baby ‘absolutely loved’.

But most bizarre of all was the case of a married mother who liked to write to-do lists. ‘Dr Hibbert told us that writing a to-do list wasn’t normal behaviour. He said it was obsessive. ‘All of us staff said, hang on — we do that too!’

But the patients couldn’t win.

‘If parents didn’t trust him they were branded paranoid,’ Keira remembers. ‘If they got upset, then he would say they weren’t stable.’

Her final clash with Dr Hibbert came when she observed a meeting he held with a woman who was describing how she had once been raped.

The psychiatrist’s reaction left Keira stunned. She says: ‘I saw him put his fingers in his ears and say: “Na na na, I’m not listening to you.” I really just couldn’t quite believe what I was seeing. I didn’t get the impression he had any empathy.’

In early 2010, Dr Hibbert opened an extra four rooms in his assessment centre.

But then just a few months after this extra building — known as The Annexe — was opened, he abruptly shut the entire assessment centre down.

Staff were told that business from local authorities was drying up due to the economic climate, and that they would all be losing their jobs.

‘It was all very strange,’ Keira remembers. ‘Something about it wasn’t right. He has spent all this money getting it kitted out, and we were still getting phone calls to the office from local authorities asking us to take more parents in.’

It was only later that Keira discovered what she believes is the real reason the centre shut so abruptly: her former employer was facing an investigation by the General Medical Council.

A young mother had claimed he deliberately misdiagnosed her with bipolar disorder — a decision which resulted in her losing her son.

Last night, a spokesman for Dr Hibbert said: ‘The Medical Protection Society, on behalf of Dr Hibbert, confirm there have been no findings made against Dr Hibbert by the General Medical Council or any other body.

Dr Hibbert is unable to comment upon ongoing investigations due to his duties of patient confidentiality and his professional obligations.’

As for Keira, she says she wants to go to the GMC to tell her story.

She adds: ‘Personally, I’d like to see him prosecuted, stripped of his assets and sent to prison. What he did was unforgiveable.’

Some names have been changed.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2136388/Dr-George-Hibbert-worker-I-saw-observing-parents-children-The-woman-said-forced-babies-mothers-expert-played-God.html#ixzz1wK3y2gss

• Home
•   News
• U.S.
• Sport
• TV&Showbiz
• Femail
• Health
• Science
• Money
• RightMinds
• Coffee Break
• Travel
• Columnists

• News Home
• Arts
• Headlines
• Pictures
• Most read
• News Board

• My Profile
• Logout

Find a Job M&S Wine Our Papers Feedback

Wednesday, May 30 2012 6AM  15°C 9AM 20°C 5-Day Forecast

The expert who played God… and the real-life Big Brother house where he tore families apart with bizarre tasks to test if parents were fit to keep their children

PUBLISHED: 23:24, 13 April 2012 | UPDATED: 03:40, 14 April 2012

• Comments (29)
• Share
• • https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv=pr&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2129555%2FAs-revealed-10-000-children-taken-care-year-doctor-fortune-setting-parents-bizarre-tasks-test-fit-children.html&size=medium&count=true&hl=en-GB&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fgapi%2F__features__%2Frt%3Dj%2Fver%3DHrbac2B7wPs.en.%2Fsv%3D1%2Fam%3D!gFuVl93svF6I1poz5g%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAItRSTO9Vm3UWk_Xm5K-dhsSuubKOkOgzw#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart&id=I0_1338350873744&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk
  • http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1337330192.html#_=1338350885934&count=horizontal&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2129555%2FAs-revealed-10-000-children-taken-care-year-doctor-fortune-setting-parents-bizarre-tasks-test-fit-children.html&size=m&text=As%20it’s%20revealed%2010%2C000%20children%20are%20taken%20into%20care%20a%20year%2C%20how%20one%20doctor%20made%20a%20fortune%20setting…&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FHRUuXj&via=MailOnline
  • http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=146202712090395&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D6%23cb%3Df3c007fd4%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%252Ff3bae98824%26domain%3Dwww.dailymail.co.uk%26relation%3Dparent.parent&extended_social_context=false&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2129555%2FAs-revealed-10-000-children-taken-care-year-doctor-fortune-setting-parents-bizarre-tasks-test-fit-children.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_GB&node_type=link&sdk=joey&send=false&show_faces=false&width=90

Few places could have been more fitting for a memorial to one of Britain’s most celebrated and respected ambassadors.

In the Crypt Chapel of St Paul’s Cathedral, representatives of the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, as well as diplomats from around the world, had assembled for a service to remember Sir Reginald Hibbert, the former Ambassador to France.

With the stone sarcophagi of Lord Nelson and the Duke of Wellington within touching distance of the congregation, Sir Reginald’s son, Dr George Hibbert, could not help but be moved by the turnout for his father, who had died, aged 80, from cancer. Delegates from the Foreign Office, Diplomatic Service, the Royal Hussars, where Sir Reginald once served, and Worcester College, Oxford, where he studied, were also present that crisp February morning in 2003.

Under investigation: Dr George Hibbert, pictured outside the Family Assessment Centre near Blunsdon, Swindon

And although he was very proud of his father, Dr George Hibbert could also later claim that his own career was flourishing as the self-proclaimed expert and psychiatrist called on by local authorities from across the country to assess whether hundreds of young mothers were fit to be parents. After the service, as he got into his black Porsche Turbo to drive home, he probably thought that, like his father, he would one day be respected and esteemed by the great and good of his profession.

But today, Dr Hibbert is famous for very different reasons. He is being investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC) following accusations that he deliberately misdiagnosed parents as having mental disorders to allow social services to take their children into care.

This week, it was revealed that applications by local authorities to take children into care in England have reached an all-time record, soaring to 10,000 a year. Since 2008, the figure has more than doubled as the authorities decide ever-more parents should have their children taken away from them.

More…

• Whole class of children could fail their GCSEs after teacher forgot to set coursework and then invented grades to cover her mistake
• Police get hundreds of calls a day from terrorised and suicidal children bullied on Facebook

In the UK as a whole, there are at least 90,000 children in care. And it is to ‘experts’ such as Dr Hibbert that authorities turn to for court evidence to back up their applications.

Hibbert has offered to surrender his licence to practise medicine but still faces a full GMC inquiry. The scandal of Dr Hibbert — accused in Parliament of being little more than a ‘hired gun’ for local authorities trying to take children into care — has shone a spotlight on a family courts system normally shrouded in secrecy.

Crucially, it raises the question of whether a single ‘expert’ should be allowed to determine the most fundamental rights of parents to bring up their own children. Even the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, the minister responsible for Britain’s family courts — where Hibbert gave many of his judgements — has been asked to launch a parliamentary investigation.

Now some of Dr Hibbert’s fellow psychiatrists are pouring scorn on the hugely controversial methods that helped him amass a fortune of more than £2 million.

But how did this privileged son of a respected British ambassador end up in such an embarrassing scandal at the age of 59? Born in Vienna in April 1952, while his father was working at the consulate in Austria, George Hibbert became accustomed to life as the son of a distinguished dignitary.

His father received Foreign Service postings in Bucharest, Guatemala, Ankara, Singapore and Mongolia, to name but a few. George was the middle of three children with an older sister, Jane, and younger brother, William, who is now a barrister.

At 13, he was packed off to board at the historic public school, Charterhouse. Eager to follow in his father’s footsteps, he went to Worcester College, Oxford, where he graduated with a BA in psychology, philosophy and physiology in 1974.

He then gained his medical qualification at the University of London, and began work as a psychiatrist.

In 1977, the year he completed his medical studies, he married Krystina Tysler, a midwife from Essex whom he had met through work. They bought a family home on a Thirties estate in Oxford and had three daughters, Katharine, Rosalind and Elizabeth — all now grown up.

The scene seemed set for a perfect family life and career, perhaps almost as distinguished as his father’s.

But that was not to be.

A psychiatrist who worked with Dr Hibbert at the Warneford Hospital, a specialist mental health unit in Oxford, in the Nineties, recalls a vain man with an eye for the ladies.

‘His nickname was “Gorgeous George” because he was so full of himself,’ she says, speaking on condition of anonymity. ‘He was incredibly vain and was often seen looking at his reflection in the window.

‘His hair was immaculately styled, and while most consultants would just wear chinos and a jumper, he would wear expensive suits and arrive at work in a sports car.

Former Charterhouse pupil and Oxford graduate Dr Hibbert is the son of a privileged British ambassador

‘He was a massive show-off, very arrogant and looked down on people.’

It appears snobbery was not his only failing. The psychiatrist told us that he revelled in the old school tie network, and expressed antiquated views about the role of women.

‘I often heard him making very laddish comments about women he considered attractive,’ the psychiatrist continues. But some nurses would be flirty and he would love it. I think it made him feel powerful.’

At first Hibbert specialised in patients suffering drink-and-drug addiction problems. Before long he was running the addiction unit, and, it is said, told colleagues he planned to join a march in 1998 organised by the Independent on Sunday newspaper calling for the decriminalisation of cannabis. It was the talk of the hospital — we were so shocked,’ the psychiatrist continues, explaining that heavy cannabis use can lead to psychosis. ‘Here was a consultant psychiatrist treating people with cannabis addiction, preparing to publicly support the legalisation of cannabis.

‘To say it raised eyebrows was  an understatement.

‘It was inappropriate.’

He also viewed the drug as a way to make money. He became a sizeable shareholder in GW Pharmaceuticals, a company that secured a Home Office contract to grow and develop medicines from cannabis.

By 2000, Dr Hibbert decided to part company with the NHS to make ‘real money’ and fund the kind of lifestyle he had become accustomed to as the son of a diplomat. In March that year he set up the consultancy Assessment in Care, making himself its director and psychiatrist, and offering its services to local authorities. His business partner was Jill Canvin, a solicitor specialising in representing children in care proceedings.

For premises they paid £390,000 in 2001 for Tadpole Cottage, a detached four-bedroom house near Swindon in Wiltshire. It would house up to four families at any one time as they were assessed at the request of local authorities to see whether children should be taken into care. Methods Dr Hibbert used to assess parental skills were bizarre and unorthodox.

‘He tried to tell my Dad that because my baby’s father and I were not together, it proved I was a bad mother’

Staff monitored and made notes on everything parents did with their children during their stay, which could last as long as three months.

He set them stressful challenges. He made some mothers vacuum the stairs while holding their baby.

Or he told parents to take a car journey with their infant strapped in the back seat and then simulate a breakdown to add stress to the situation as a test to see if they were fit to keep their children.

Former residents have claimed their time spent at Tadpole Cottage was like a nightmare version of the Big Brother household on television.

But, for Hibbert and Canvin, it was a lucrative business that resulted in their company being valued at £2.7  million last year. Local authorities paid £6,000 a week to have a family in his care. He charged £210 an hour simply to read a report from their social services departments.

But Dr Hibbert’s gilded life began to unravel when, in 2007, a mother complained that he had wrongly diagnosed her with bipolar depression. The GMC began to investigate.

Other parents began to tell their of their shocking experiences. Many of them claimed they were in a ‘no-win’ situation: if they were too attentive to their babies, they were deemed to be ‘trying too hard’, while if they worked at seeming to be less conscientious, they were accused of being distant.

A whistleblowing member of staff, who has agreed to give evidence at the GMC inquiry, claims Dr Hibbert was in the habit of putting his fingers in his ears and chanting ‘Nah, nah, nah. I’m not listening’ when he wanted to ignore an aggrieved mother.

At Tadpole Cottage, staff-recorded details about a number of parents reveal the true extent of the impossible situation they faced.

It included details of what time a mother or father got up, what they wore, what they ate and even the telephone conversations they had.

It would be noted that a three-month-old baby ‘did not seem to respond’ when told she was a good girl by her mother.

That apparent failing became the basis for an accusation that  the mother was not ‘in tune’ with her child. Another mother was said to be unable to ‘prioritise her child’ because she had bought herself hair conditioner during a trip to a pharmacy. Yet another mother, who liked to bake cakes, read books and was chatty and outgoing, was reported to have worn ‘a bright orange sundress’ and ‘inappropriate socks and trainers’.

Yet another was criticised for ‘a blank expression’ while doing the cleaning chores. Some parents who stayed there felt Hibbert’s demands for perfection were not only excessive, but also hypocritical. By then, the psychiatrist had split up with his wife and moved from their Oxford home into a cottage adjacent to the Wiltshire centre —Ms Canvin lived in a flat above the centre’s garage.

A woman who Hibbert had chided as a bad mother because she had split from her husband recalls him becoming ‘very aggressive’ when he was asked about his own family life.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, tells of how her father once attended the cottage and challenged Dr Hibbert over his views on single mothers.

‘He tried to tell my Dad that because my baby’s father and I were not together, it proved I was a bad mother,’ the woman says.

‘He said it showed I had problems forming relationships.

‘My dad was stunned and asked: “Have you never had a failed relationship?” Dr Hibbert became really angry and aggressive.

He snapped back: “We’re not here to discuss me — we are here to discuss your daughter”. Later on, we found out from a member of staff that he was going through a divorce at the time.

‘We just thought: “What a complete hypocrite.”‘

While the psychiatrist’s career has not ended as successfully as his esteemed father’s, he did inherit a reputation for being combative and abrasive (a trait that was noted about Sir Reginald in one newspaper obituary).

We have obtained a letter Dr Hibbert sent in response to Kristina Hofberg, a consultant psychiatrist, who was critical of his methods when she reviewed his care of one mother.

In it, he rounds on his fellow medical professional, accusing her of having an ‘apparent difficulty in interpreting English words in common usage’.

He concludes: ‘Her reinterpretations consistently imply that it is our behaviour and judgement, rather than our patient’s, that is at fault.’

The question the GMC will have to answer is whether Dr Hibbert’s methods were ethical and professional and, if not, how many children were torn needlessly from their mothers. Inevitably, many women — some as young as 16 — spoke of a deep sense of despair and stress while in his care.

During her period of assessment, one told a member of staff that she ‘hadn’t spoken to anybody in days except for my baby, but she doesn’t talk back’. It was observed how one mother ‘was tearful and began to swear, saying: “I am fed up here — fed up of being watched.” ’

On another occasion, the same mother tried to withdraw to a  quiet room but was followed there by staff.

When staff looked in and asked if she was all right, she snapped back: ‘Can I just have five minutes on my own please?” and was crying.

A woman who was at the centre with her eight-week-old son told us that she became alarmed when she arrived because she believed that no one left the establishment with their babies. ‘It was like something from Victorian times. I started to panic,’ she recalls. ‘It seemed like no one got out without having their baby taken away. You would see them screaming and crying, begging not to have their babies taken away.’

Her premonition came all too tragically true. She was ordered to leave without her son after Hibbert ruled that she was suffering from a bipolar disorder.

Two other psychiatrists later criticised his findings, insisting she had no such condition. By then, however, her child had been adopted and she could not get him back.

The centre is now closed. And the company website, which featured a picture of Dr Hibbert smiling reassuringly, has been taken down.

Although we made regular calls and left messages for Hibbert, he has refused to comment.

Instead, he relies on the Medical Protection Society. A spokesman says: ‘Dr Hibbert is limited in the amount of information he can provide about his actions or advice.

‘He is unable to comment on allegations raised in relation to care of a patient due to his professional duty of confidentiality.

‘We can confirm that Dr Hibbert is co-operating with an ongoing GMC investigation and that no findings have been made against him.

‘The questions raised with regards to Dr Hibbert’s personal life constitute a wholly unacceptable intrusion into his private and family life and as such he does not intend to respond further.’

In the meantime, families torn apart as a result of Dr Hibbert’s findings into their personal relationships are trying desperately to rebuild their shattered lives.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129555/As-revealed-10-000-children-taken-care-year-doctor-fortune-setting-parents-bizarre-tasks-test-fit-children.html#ixzz1wK4STXUV

The doctor who took my baby away

As Dr George Hibbert, an ‘expert’ child-care psychiatrist, faces being struck off, we talk to one mother who was labelled unfit, while a whistle-blower gives an insight into his unconventional methods

Dr Hibbert faces being struck off by the General Medical Council following claims that he misdiagnosed many of his patients with mental disorders and tailored his conclusions to suit the view of the relevant social services departments Photo: SWINDON ADVERTISER

By Patrick Sawer

7:00AM BST 01 Apr 2012

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html?show_screen_name=false&show_count=true&screen_name=patricksawer

“I miss my daughter so much when I’m not with her,” says Maria, staring longingly at a photograph of the pretty three‑year-old. “People who’ve seen me with her know I’m a good mother, but what Dr Hibbert said about me meant that I wasn’t allowed to keep her.”

The 36-year-old is talking about Dr George Hibbert, a controversial psychiatrist whose damning verdict on her character and personality resulted in Maria (not her real name) losing custody of her only child.

Maria’s story raises disturbing questions about the power one man could exercise over those he judged to be unfit parents. Between 2000 and 2010 he was commissioned by social services departments throughout England (who paid him around £6,000 per case a week) to determine whether the parents referred to him were fit to keep their children. As a result of his reports, dozens of children were separated from their mothers or fathers.

But in a sudden turn of fortune, Dr Hibbert, 59, now faces being struck off by the General Medical Council, following claims that he misdiagnosed many of his patients with mental disorders and tailored his conclusions to suit the view of the relevant social services departments. And it is indicative of the doubts being raised over Dr Hibbert’s methods that his assessment that Maria was suffering from mental health problems – which led to custody of her child being given to the father – was later contradicted by an eminent psychiatrist, who concluded that there was no evidence she was an unsuitable parent.

“If it wasn’t for Dr Hibbert, I could still be with my baby,” says Maria. “It has been terrible. Being without her, and only seeing her for short periods, is very upsetting. I feel so sad whenever I have to say goodbye. I miss her very much.”

RELATED ARTICLES

• Why do our family courts rely on ‘hired gun’ experts?

  24 Mar 2012

• Doctor ‘distorted diagnoses for local authorities’

  17 Mar 2012

• Dubious ‘experts’ are paid to tear families apart

  17 Mar 2012

• We already have unjust secret courts

  03 Mar 2012

• Mother could face jail because her children talked to each other on Facebook

  25 Feb 2012

• A mother on a visit to the UK loses three children to social workers

  11 Feb 2012

The controversy surrounding Dr Hibbert comes at a time of growing concern over the activities of child‑care experts on whose opinion courts rely to determine whether a parent is a fit and proper person to bring up their own child. Only a few weeks ago a report by Professor Jane Ireland, a forensic psychologist, warned that decisions about the future of thousands of children are being based on flawed evidence from well-paid “experts”.

Maria, who is originally from South America and whose identity cannot be revealed for legal reasons, is a domestic worker in Oxfordshire. A naturally emotional woman, her tough life experiences have left her with a deep distrust of authority figures, and she has often – to her own detriment – clashed with social workers and those with influence over her child’s future.

Social workers originally become involved after Maria suffered a period of postnatal depression following the birth of her daughter in May 2009. She then entered into a dispute with the father of the baby over custody. The couple were estranged and their relationship had been troubled, at times violent.

Oxfordshire County Council referred her to Dr Hibbert because they believed her to be impulsive, volatile and unable to prioritise the needs of the child.

Maria was sent to the Windmill Hill Centre near Cricklade, Wiltshire, one of two residential family centres run by Dr Hibbert, the other being Tadpole Cottage outside Swindon. She was one of hundreds of parents sent there over the years, who spent up to 14 weeks at a time having every aspect of their behaviour and interaction with their children monitored and recorded as part of their assessment. The opinion of Dr Hibbert – who trained as a psychiatrist in Oxford and worked in the NHS for 20 years before setting up in private practice – was key in deciding whether a child should be allowed to stay with its mother or father.

As part of their assessment, Maria and the other parents were set a number of weekly challenges. These included doing a large supermarket shop for about 14 residents and staff and involved loading and manoeuvring two heavily laden trolleys while simultaneously looking after their child. Another “challenge” required the parent to vacuum the stairs at the centres while holding their child.

But the tyre-changing exercise was the one Maria and the others dreaded most. This required the parent to wait until it was nearly time for the baby to be fed before driving into the country, accompanied by an assessor. Once in an isolated spot – by which time the child would, in all likelihood, have started crying for a feed – a “breakdown” would be staged. The parent would then be required to change the tyre while looking after the increasingly fractious baby. The challenge was designed to observe the parent’s interaction with their child in what was undoubtedly a stressful situation.

“I’d never changed a tyre before in my life,” says Maria, “but fortunately my baby was only whining a bit, so I could go back and forth from her to the tyre, comforting her and then working on the wheel. I managed to change the tyre and drove the six miles back to the centre to feed her.

“The stair-vacuuming task I passed easily, too, carrying my baby in one arm and hoovering with the other,” she continues. “But one poor 17-year-old girl failed. She was really upset.”

Maria maintains that she did all that was asked of her during the residential assessment, and that towards the end of the 13-week period Dr Hibbert indicated to her directly that he would recommend her as a fit mother.

“He told me he thought I was a good mother, even if I could be a bit emotional and temperamental,” she says.

A few days later, however, following a row between Maria and Dr Hibbert over what she claimed was the inappropriate behaviour of a male parent at the centre, he appeared to change his mind. Indeed, he is understood to have told social services that she had a level of personality dysfunction which, under stress, would lead to behaviour indicative of a personality disorder.

Maria was left shattered by Dr Hibbert’s comments – and by what happened next.

After receiving his report, together with the advice of social services, the family court ruled that Maria should not be given custody of her baby. In May 2010, after a period of foster care, custody was awarded to the father of the child. Maria was initially allowed only two hours a week contact under the supervision of social workers.

“Dr Hibbert said I behaved in an unpredictable way,” says Maria. “But everyone who knew me and saw me with my daughter said I was a good mother.”

Those impressions were confirmed by a whistle-blower who worked for Dr Hibbert until the Windmill Centre’s closure in August 2010. “From what I saw, Maria was a perfectly normal, loving mother,” she says. “She was caring and organised. She had problems with Dr Hibbert because he would deliberately push her over the edge, but I couldn’t see that she had any problems with her baby.”

The whistle-blower, speaking exclusively to The Sunday Telegraph, has more than 20 years’ experience of working with children. “Dr Hibbert would deliberately needle people,” she continues. “The entire assessment situation was set up as a deliberately unnatural environment for a mother or father, in order to make them feel very uncomfortable.”

She claims that on one occasion Dr Hibbert put his fingers in his ears and chanted, “Nah, nah, nah, I’m not listening”, when one mother tried to raise her concerns with him.

She also claims that another woman who had a habit of writing “to do” lists as a way of organising her day was deemed to be obsessive; while a young father was judged as having paedophile tendencies after Dr Hibbert saw him lying on the floor cuddling his four-year-old daughter while they watched the BBC’s CBeebies together.

The whistle-blower has subsequently raised her concerns with John Hemming MP, who campaigns for greater transparency in family courts, and is now prepared to give evidence at the GMC hearing.

Dr Hibbert’s work was lucrative. Companies House records show that profits for his company, Assessment in Care, rose from £23,000 in 2001 to a peak of £468,000 in 2007. The company – which he ran with a solicitor specialising in child-care cases – is now understood to be worth £2.7 million, while his family home, set amid the rolling Wiltshire countryside, is worth an estimated £500,000.

But in what seems to have been an attempt to limit any action the GMC could take against him, Dr Hibbert closed the assessment centres and wrote to the council offering to voluntarily withdraw his name from the medical register, stating that he had “no intention of returning to clinical practice in the future”.

The GMC refused his request. It decided that it was in the public interest for the matter to be fully investigated “because of the unresolved concerns regarding his fitness to practice”.

Dr Hibbert was unavailable for comment. Speaking on his behalf, a spokesman for the Medical Protection Society says: “Dr Hibbert is unable to comment on allegations raised in relation to care of a patient due to his professional duty of confidentiality. We can confirm that Dr Hibbert is co‑operating with an ongoing General Medical Council investigation and that no findings have been made against him.”

As for Maria, when her case returned to court earlier this year, matters took a turn for the better. In contrast to Dr Hibbert’s opinion, experts found no problems with Maria’s mental state and no evidence that she posed a risk to her daughter. As a result, the court ruled that Maria should have increased access to her daughter, including an overnight visit once a fortnight on top of six hours together every Monday.

In time, Maria hopes to be allowed by the court to spend more time with her daughter. But she remains bitter about her treatment at the hands of Dr Hibbert.

“I’m so happy that I’m seeing my baby for longer now. It’s lovely being with her,” she says. “But I wouldn’t be in this position if it wasn’t for Dr Hibbert. Other mothers have suffered in the same way because of him – and it must not be allowed to continue.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9178021/The-doctor-who-took-my-baby-away.html

We do not Forgive. We do not Forget. We are Anonymous. Expect Us. Even if some of us will be arrested, imprisoned, killed, we always reborn with new members, because an idea does not die

The Secrecy of the Family Courts should be lifted NOW

Published by Publicity Online on May 20, 2011

967 Signatures

 

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?action=recommend&api_key=27625357694&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D6%23cb%3Df1d0916344%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.gopetition.com%252Ff249f9086c%26domain%3Dwww.gopetition.com%26relation%3Dparent.parent&extended_social_context=false&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gopetition.com%2Fpetitions%2Fthe-secrecy-of-the-family-courts-should-be-lifted-now.html&layout=standard&locale=en_US&node_type=link&ref=title_inline&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=true&width=450

Target: The Judiciary, Parliament as the Highest Court of the Land, Education Select Committee

Region: United Kingdom

Web site: http://victims-unite.net

Sign the petition

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1337330192.html#_=1338346197443&count=horizontal&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gopetition.com%2Fpetitions%2Fthe-secrecy-of-the-family-courts-should-be-lifted-now.html&size=m&text=The%20Secrecy%20of%20the%20Family%20Courts%20should%20be%20lifted%20NOW%20Petition&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gopetition.com%2Fpetitions%2Fthe-secrecy-of-the-family-courts-should-be-lifted-now.html&via=GoPetition

https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv=pr&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gopetition.com%2Fpetitions%2Fthe-secrecy-of-the-family-courts-should-be-lifted-now.html&size=medium&count=true&hl=en-US&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fgapi%2F__features__%2Frt%3Dj%2Fver%3DHrbac2B7wPs.en.%2Fsv%3D1%2Fam%3D!gFuVl93svF6I1poz5g%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAItRSTO9Vm3UWk_Xm5K-dhsSuubKOkOgzw#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart&id=I0_1338346198087&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gopetition.com

Background (Preamble):

This petition was started by Jane Davies in the streets of Carmarthen and published onUnity – Injustice. It is an expression of campaigning efforts by many individuals, organisations and John Hemming as the first and foremost MP. 

“Lifting secrecy” implies not issuing ‘injunction’, ‘reporting restriction’ or ‘gagging’ orders, as reported in The untold story of gagging orders by The Independent: only 69 related to celebrities, while 264 were about children and young adults. 

By publishing this petition, this site to support Vicky Haigh and this site to support Bishop Gloria Musa, I hope to raise awareness online. Here are the marvellous comments by petition signers.

Please note the videos of rallies Against Child Abuse in London!

Please note also that 100,000 signatures get us a formal debate in Parliament. At 100 per day, that means in 3 years!

And do look at this comprehensive research into 3 decades of child protection and family justice unique to the UK and Wales!

The worst case and international cover-up seems to be Linda Lewis, but Ian Josephs who publishes Forced Adoption and has been helping families since the 60s, reckons that the Musa case is the worst.

The Education Select Committee has received this portfolio of nine cases for itsinvestigation into “child protection”. 

Related Publications:

Great Britain: The Stolen Children – Special Radio Prize for “shocking and relatively unknown human rights violations”

The Child Protection System in England – Submission to Education Select Committee by Florence Bellone – winner of above prize

MP claims 1,000 children “wrongly” adopted every year – BBC

Social Workers sex up abuse claims to snatch children for adoption – Sunday Express

Related Petitions: 

Stop Social Workers removing Innocent Children for Forced Adoption!

Send the Musa Family back Home to Nigeria – WITH their Children!

Paedophiles’ rights? What about the rights of our children!

Petition:

We, the undersigned, believe that in the best interest of the Child, and because it is impossible to defend a system from accusation of bias and discrimination, if it operates behind closed doors, the secrecy of Family Courts should be lifted NOW!

Sign the petition

The The Secrecy of the Family Courts should be lifted NOW petition to The Judiciary, Parliament as the Highest Court of the Land, Education Select Committee was written by Publicity Online and is in the category Justice at GoPetition. Contact author here. Petition tags: child abuse, paedophilia,court secrecy, family law, social services

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/the-secrecy-of-the-family-courts-should-be-lifted-now.html

29 May 2012: “Wishes and Feelings” – BIOC, or just another massive fraud?

Category: News 

Posted by: Stu G

Wishes and Feelings – Another fraudulent tactic in dragging out Court Cases?

You may remember article http://news.realfathersforjustice.org/index.php?itemid=675
at the end of March about the ‘wishes and feelings’ doctrine now pervasive in the UK’s social policy concerning children. In that article I expressed that the wishes and feelings of children could be a useful toolkit – were it not abused. But, it seems, however good the intent of an initiative designed to benefit children, it has to get passed our social policy makers. There, with a little twist and insinuation of a few Marxist/feminist words here and there, the intent is reversed when turned into guidance. Effectively, sweeping changes and instructions from the UNCRC, streamlined via the Coalition to the courts to balance things and speed things up, in the genuine and objective Best interests of children, are subtly undermined elsewhere.

In one case we are monitoring, the father had every the ‘every other weekend’ token contact after twenty times in court. There exists no credible evidence that this standard imposition so beloved by judges, helps children maintain strong relationships and plenty to suggest the opposite. 

One expert, Dr. Linda Nielson (2010) states, after having read hundreds of research papers, that: 

“the research is abundantly clear on this: only allowing fathers and children to live together 15 or 20 percent of the time is not in most children’s best interests. This view is widely held by experts who do research, mediation or therapy with divorced parents as evidenced by the research presented in abundance throughout this paper. Our society and our legal system can – and must – do better than this.” A Government Green Paper from 2004 states that less than 30% contact as a minimum is “not much use.”

The father was issued an S.91 (14) order for three years after trying, in ten more hearings, to gain more time with his children after they expressed to social workers that they wanted more time with him. Local Authority social workers then said the children had been ‘coerced’ by the father. Judges (28 judges in total have sat on this case) have refused to speak to the kids. The kids said a previous NYAS Guardian ad Litem had cheated them when asking them about their preferences over parental split. “Would you like to see more of your mummy?” Just as the S.91 Order was about to lapse, the mother withheld contact for weeks. Without regular contact to the father to keep the relationship strong and knowing their words count for nothing, one child finally gave in and apparently expressed a view to see more of her mummy. Contact was enforced but, bizarrely, immediately cut from every other weekend to 24 hours visiting contact per month – no overnights. Holiday contact is withdrawn. Mum’s barrister quietly and ‘helpfully’ informed the father outside of court the judge intended to ‘slowly rebuild contact’. Backroom deals? What all experts state to be the only way out of these kinds of problems – more contact, very soon – is exactly what is not happening. But, as the Office for Judicial Complaints says, “Judges have no obligation to read or take notice of research.” Presumably, legal textbooks are a much better read when ex-boarding school boys and girls need guidance in fabricating proclamations about their esoteric versions of meaningful parental relationships. 

Lawyers are not slow to catch onto new ways of making money either – the lawyer representing the mother in this case, probably being paid for with child benefit and tax credits, wanted to cut contact entirely, wait a few more weeks, then “decide the case according to wishes and feelings.” There have already been four new hearings and more planned over the coming months as the relationship between the father and children is being systematically choked off. 

Please read on……

In another case the parents had eventually agreed consent orders with shared residence and sharing significant contact. But, it seems, a look at the child benefit and tax credits and CSA calculator soon changed mum’s mind. Contact was stopped and again the children reported they wanted to see their father. CAFCASS said the children ‘were being coerced’ by the father. His contact was stopped entirely until the matter could get back to court, which luckily for him was ‘only’ weeks later. Contact was reinstated at every other Saturday/Sunday. Four hearings already, looks like four more to come, with CAFCASS reporting yet again in the middle. An arrangement of the type that the Coalition says it wants to see as standard is casually and collaboratively destroyed for no proper reason by the biased professionals who have nothing to gain from parental cooperation and all the power and facility to deliberately further buckle rather than fix low grade problems. Is this ‘in the child’s best interests,’ or simply 727 family ticket holding judges filling up Judicial/social worker diaries (prior to publicly lamenting how overloaded and stressed they all are) whilst endlessly sponging up State assets, and transferring to themselves the private assets earned by decent, productive people trapped in the Family Division’s nonsense?

An old case concerns a father of three. Contact was stopped for months before the final hearing. One child said she wanted to see her father, one declined to comment (probably disgusted at being asked), the other said she did not want to see him. That was years ago. None of the children have seen their father since. As ever, not a word about maternal coercion. Well done, District Judge Goddard, for chalking up a few more ruined lives on the fuselage. 

In a case in Belfast, several years ago, a young child was asked in court, whilst still seeing both of her parents, who she wanted to live with and see. The child said “live with Daddy but still see mummy lots.” 50/50 was ordered. The arrangement holds strong today. 

Such arrangements are common in Scandinavia – and after taking a look it’s not hard to see why. There are not the financial State incentives for sole motherhood that are on offer here. It is not a culturally supported lifestyle choice. Employers are accustomed to providing week on- week off flexitime. In some Scandinavian judicatures, a mother is more likely to apply to court to enforce contact between children and disinterested fathers than the perverse and reverse way things are done here.

 

http://news.realfathersforjustice.org/index.php?itemid=686

Stop labeling, drugging kids

 

http://druggingchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/stop-labeling-drugging-kids.html

RE. X, Y, Z (MORGAN V A LOCAL AUTHORITY) [2011] EWHC 1157 (FAM)

 

Re. X, Y, Z (Morgan v A Local Authority) [2011] EWHC 1157 (Fam)

Case date: 11/05/2011

Court: High Court

Area/s of law: Reporting restrictions

The President of the Family Division ordered the disclosure of an expert’s report, prepared for the purpose of care proceedings, because it would contribute to an informed debate about the Family Justice System. Importantly, he also advocated such disclosure to become routine practice going forward. 

Background 

Coventry City Council commenced care proceedings in 2008 in respect of three children, X, Y and Z. It subsequently applied to withdraw those proceedings, having realised that it could not meet the threshold required for a care order. Bellamy HHJ, sitting as a High Court Judge, granted permission to withdraw the proceedings. In his judgment, he was critical of the local authority and of the report prepared by the expert, Dr M, which had been relied upon by Coventry City Council to advance a case of factitious or induced illness (FII). 

Brian Morgan, a freelance journalist, applied for an order permitting him to name Dr M. In his application, Mr Morgan was supported by the mother of X, Y and Z, who advocated naming Dr M as a means of preventing other families being put through the same experience as her own. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health was granted permission to intervene and its President, Prof. Stephenson, put in a statement. Dr M’s position was that, if his name were to be made public, he wanted his rebuttal of the Judge’s criticisms to be published. He had not given oral evidence in the child care proceedings and so had not had the opportunity to defend his report. 

Disclosure of expert’s name and report ordered to further “informed debate” 

The President, Wall LJ, did not grant Dr M anonymity and ordered that his report (anonymised to protect the family) may also be published. 

The legal principles:

• The President approved and adopted the reasoning of Munby J (as he then was) in BBC v CAFCASS Legal [2007] EWHC 616 (Fam) and A v Ward [2010] EWHC 16 (Fam), decisions which also considered the question of what should be permitted to be reported about child care proceedings which had been dismissed (para 29).

   

• As the proceedings concerning X, Y and Z had come to an end, the only statutory reporting restriction which applied was the Administration of Justice Act 1960, s.12. This meant that, unless an order was made under either the restraint or the disclosure jurisdictions, limiting or relaxing the statutory provisions, (see Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam)), Dr M could be publicly identified, but his report could not be published or its contents discussed (paras 29, 32, 70).

   

• Those jurisdictions require consideration of the competing Convention rights engaged and they must be exercised in accordance with the principles set out in Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47.

The decision:

• Because the Judge had grounds (other than the contents of Dr. M’s report) for his decisions (1) to permit Coventry City Council to withdraw the care proceedings and (2) to order it to pay part of the parents’ (publicly funded) costs, his criticism of Dr M, in circumstances where he had not heard him give evidence, was “unnecessary” (paras 63 to 68). However, as those criticisms had, in fact, been made they had to be taken into account when applying the above principles.

   

• There were two arguments in favour of exercising the restraint jurisdiction to prohibit Dr M’s name being disclosed. These were (1) that Bellamy HHJ had retained Dr M’s anonymity in his public judgments partly because he had not heard him give evidence and (2) that anonymity is desirable to encourage doctors to act as expert witnesses in Children Act proceedings and they will be deterred from doing so if they are publicly vilified (para 72).

   

•  In respect of the first consideration, it was not necessary to exercise the restraint jurisdiction if the disclosure jurisdiction were exercised to permit Dr M’s report (redacted to protect the anonymity of the family) to be published and discussed. Without the report, there could be “no proper debate” (para 73). Although the President considered the questions of Dr M’s anonymity and the disclosure of his report in turn, it is clear that his decisions were linked. He observed that if Dr M were to be named, then it was appropriate that he should be allowed to defend his work, out of fairness, and because otherwise there could be no proper debate (para 69, 88).

   

• It was this ability to inform debate, including dispelling myths about the Family Justice System, which tipped the balance against the second consideration and in favour of Mr Morgan’s Article 10 rights (para 74-82). The evidence given by Prof. Stephenson for the Royal College of Paediatrics had set out the professional risks arising from unfounded complaints faced by medical professionals dealing with child abuse cases. He gave evidence about the reluctance of medical professionals to be involved in child protection work. A shortage of experts was clearly a concern and the President used this judgment to encourage experts to undertake this sort of work, because “where work is properly done and the methodology is professionally sound paediatricians have nothing to fear from the courts.”

   

• It is apparent throughout this judgment that the President of the Family Division is concerned to achieve greater transparency of the Family Justice System (without compromising the privacy of any child involved in proceedings) in order to facilitate debate. However, it was equally clear that greater transparency is aimed at bringing about balanced debate, not “tendentious” reporting (see paras 76, 80). For example, having considered Mr Morgan’s submissions in support of his application, he said: “I was greatly heartened to read that if and insofar as Dr M wished to defend himself, he would do so with Mr Morgan’s ‘fullest reporting assistance if needed’. This, to my mind, went a long way to answering the questions which formed in my mind as the argument progressed, namely ‘will there be a true debate?’ and ‘what is the forum?’” (para 37). The President warned against unbalanced reporting which, if it occurs, is likely to deter further openness (para 97).

Future practice 

This judgment is of importance not only because of what the President of the Family Division decided on the facts of this particular case, which everyone accepted were somewhat unusual, but also because of what he said about what should be the future practice for identifying experts in children proceedings and the disclosure of their reports. He would “like to see a practice develop, in which expert reports would be routinely disclosed, and the media able to comment both on the report and on the use to which they were put in the proceedings. This would mean that the views of the judge on the expert evidence would also be disclosed” (para 94). 

It therefore appears that in cases where the media seeks to permission to publish such normally private information, it will be pushing at an open door, except in cases where the child has refused to engage in the process without a guarantee of complete confidentiality or where identifying the expert or disclosing his report risks identifying the child. 

Kate Wilson 

RE. X, Y, Z (MORGAN V A LOCAL AUTHORITY) [2011] EWHC 1157 (FAM)

 

Re. X, Y, Z (Morgan v A Local Authority) [2011] EWHC 1157 (Fam)

Case date: 11/05/2011

Court: High Court

Area/s of law: Reporting restrictions

The President of the Family Division ordered the disclosure of an expert’s report, prepared for the purpose of care proceedings, because it would contribute to an informed debate about the Family Justice System. Importantly, he also advocated such disclosure to become routine practice going forward. 

Background 

Coventry City Council commenced care proceedings in 2008 in respect of three children, X, Y and Z. It subsequently applied to withdraw those proceedings, having realised that it could not meet the threshold required for a care order. Bellamy HHJ, sitting as a High Court Judge, granted permission to withdraw the proceedings. In his judgment, he was critical of the local authority and of the report prepared by the expert, Dr M, which had been relied upon by Coventry City Council to advance a case of factitious or induced illness (FII). 

Brian Morgan, a freelance journalist, applied for an order permitting him to name Dr M. In his application, Mr Morgan was supported by the mother of X, Y and Z, who advocated naming Dr M as a means of preventing other families being put through the same experience as her own. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health was granted permission to intervene and its President, Prof. Stephenson, put in a statement. Dr M’s position was that, if his name were to be made public, he wanted his rebuttal of the Judge’s criticisms to be published. He had not given oral evidence in the child care proceedings and so had not had the opportunity to defend his report. 

Disclosure of expert’s name and report ordered to further “informed debate” 

The President, Wall LJ, did not grant Dr M anonymity and ordered that his report (anonymised to protect the family) may also be published. 

The legal principles:

• The President approved and adopted the reasoning of Munby J (as he then was) in BBC v CAFCASS Legal [2007] EWHC 616 (Fam) and A v Ward [2010] EWHC 16 (Fam), decisions which also considered the question of what should be permitted to be reported about child care proceedings which had been dismissed (para 29).

   

• As the proceedings concerning X, Y and Z had come to an end, the only statutory reporting restriction which applied was the Administration of Justice Act 1960, s.12. This meant that, unless an order was made under either the restraint or the disclosure jurisdictions, limiting or relaxing the statutory provisions, (see Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam)), Dr M could be publicly identified, but his report could not be published or its contents discussed (paras 29, 32, 70).

   

• Those jurisdictions require consideration of the competing Convention rights engaged and they must be exercised in accordance with the principles set out in Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47.

The decision:

• Because the Judge had grounds (other than the contents of Dr. M’s report) for his decisions (1) to permit Coventry City Council to withdraw the care proceedings and (2) to order it to pay part of the parents’ (publicly funded) costs, his criticism of Dr M, in circumstances where he had not heard him give evidence, was “unnecessary” (paras 63 to 68). However, as those criticisms had, in fact, been made they had to be taken into account when applying the above principles.

   

• There were two arguments in favour of exercising the restraint jurisdiction to prohibit Dr M’s name being disclosed. These were (1) that Bellamy HHJ had retained Dr M’s anonymity in his public judgments partly because he had not heard him give evidence and (2) that anonymity is desirable to encourage doctors to act as expert witnesses in Children Act proceedings and they will be deterred from doing so if they are publicly vilified (para 72).

   

•  In respect of the first consideration, it was not necessary to exercise the restraint jurisdiction if the disclosure jurisdiction were exercised to permit Dr M’s report (redacted to protect the anonymity of the family) to be published and discussed. Without the report, there could be “no proper debate” (para 73). Although the President considered the questions of Dr M’s anonymity and the disclosure of his report in turn, it is clear that his decisions were linked. He observed that if Dr M were to be named, then it was appropriate that he should be allowed to defend his work, out of fairness, and because otherwise there could be no proper debate (para 69, 88).

   

• It was this ability to inform debate, including dispelling myths about the Family Justice System, which tipped the balance against the second consideration and in favour of Mr Morgan’s Article 10 rights (para 74-82). The evidence given by Prof. Stephenson for the Royal College of Paediatrics had set out the professional risks arising from unfounded complaints faced by medical professionals dealing with child abuse cases. He gave evidence about the reluctance of medical professionals to be involved in child protection work. A shortage of experts was clearly a concern and the President used this judgment to encourage experts to undertake this sort of work, because “where work is properly done and the methodology is professionally sound paediatricians have nothing to fear from the courts.”

   

• It is apparent throughout this judgment that the President of the Family Division is concerned to achieve greater transparency of the Family Justice System (without compromising the privacy of any child involved in proceedings) in order to facilitate debate. However, it was equally clear that greater transparency is aimed at bringing about balanced debate, not “tendentious” reporting (see paras 76, 80). For example, having considered Mr Morgan’s submissions in support of his application, he said: “I was greatly heartened to read that if and insofar as Dr M wished to defend himself, he would do so with Mr Morgan’s ‘fullest reporting assistance if needed’. This, to my mind, went a long way to answering the questions which formed in my mind as the argument progressed, namely ‘will there be a true debate?’ and ‘what is the forum?’” (para 37). The President warned against unbalanced reporting which, if it occurs, is likely to deter further openness (para 97).

Future practice 

This judgment is of importance not only because of what the President of the Family Division decided on the facts of this particular case, which everyone accepted were somewhat unusual, but also because of what he said about what should be the future practice for identifying experts in children proceedings and the disclosure of their reports. He would “like to see a practice develop, in which expert reports would be routinely disclosed, and the media able to comment both on the report and on the use to which they were put in the proceedings. This would mean that the views of the judge on the expert evidence would also be disclosed” (para 94). 

It therefore appears that in cases where the media seeks to permission to publish such normally private information, it will be pushing at an open door, except in cases where the child has refused to engage in the process without a guarantee of complete confidentiality or where identifying the expert or disclosing his report risks identifying the child. 

Kate Wilson 

Bad Medicine: Child Protective Services is destroying lives and families

Bad Medicine: Child Protective Services is destroying lives and families.

Coming soon Staffordshire Police what they don’t want you to know