UKCORRUPTFAMILYCOURTS

February 28, 2010

Loss of a Child and how Social Services twist things

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 10:41 am

For anyone losing a child is a devastating experience. Many will need help by medications to cope with their loss, counselling etc.

Some may turn to drugs or alcohol to numb the pain

Some even commit suicide

.It is recognised from the Confidential Enquiry into Motherhood and child health (CEMACH) that removal of a baby into social services accomodation is a major trigger for suicides in mothers.

Now i ask any parent reading this how you would feel if you had lost a child.

Distraught ? Tearful ? Depressed ? Like life can’t go on ?

Team that up with constant hearings , false evidence, persecution

Panic attacks , Anxiety , Stress ?

Or am i wrong ? Would you carry on regardless with none of the above ?

I write this because when a parent loses a child through bereavement people sympathise with them , it is seen as acceptable that they should feel distraught etc,

Medication to help them cope with their loss is never questioned. It is understandable as they are grieving.

Feeling suicidal is met with compassion , help and counselling .

Spare a thought for the parents that have lost a child through family courts.

They are not allowed to feel any of the above . Social services use it against them.If they are understandably upset they are then labelled as being unstable.

Dare they seek medication that is used against them.

They are not allowed to grieve .

They are not offered any counselling other than post adoption this being sometimes years after losing their child.

They are not offered any sympathy.

If they end up having a breakdown it is a case of ” i told you so “

How can anyone justify the barbaric treatment of people in this way?

Yet Social Services are allowed to mock and persecute these parents without consequence.

Even when a parent then commits suicide no blame is put on the Local Authorities.

No understanding is given to what these parents go through.

For many it is something that is never eased with time.

It isnt like normal grief it is much worse.

This seems to be something never mentioned in a Family Court room .

Instead the parents are demonised.

While fat cat experts make thousands for preparing reports .Why doesn’t one have the balls to say the truth about grief and loss and its effects?

Why doesn’t anyone show any common sense and see that it is understandable given the circumstances?

Because they are all too busy making too much money to jeopardise their own financial gain.

Social workers are all too busy covering their own backs ?

Judges are far to busy just rubber stamping decisions and lack any compassion.

Cafcass are far to busy colluding with the social workers .

There is money to be made at whatever cost .

Everyone profits from Family Court proceedings

Judges

Lawyers

Social Workers

Local Authorities

Cafcass

Adoption Agencies

Barardo’s

Fostering Agencies

Nspcc

Foster Carer’s

Psychologists

Psychiatrists

Paediatricians

the list is endless .

The effect on the parents and children is far less important than those involved making money.

It is a barbaric trade.


Advertisements

Adoption and family court scandals

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 7:51 am
How social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoption
By SUE REID
Last updated at 23:10 31 January 2008
National disgrace: The number of babies taken from their mothers and put up for adoption is rising sharply
For a mother, there can be no greater horror than having a baby snatched away by the State at birth.
The women to whom it has happened say their lives are ruined for ever – and goodness knows what longterm effect it has on the child.
Most never recover from this trauma.
Imagine a baby growing in your body for nine months, imagine going through the emotion of bringing it into the world, only to have social workers seize the newborn, sometimes within minutes of its first cry and often on the flimsiest of excuses.
Yet this disturbing scenario is played out every day.
The number of babies under one month old being taken into care for adoption is now running at almost four a day (a 300 per cent increase over a decade).
In total, 75 children of all ages are being removed from their parents every week before being handed over to new families.
Some of these may have been willingly given up for adoption, but critics of the Government’s policy are convinced that the vast majority are taken by force.
Time and again, the mothers say they are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Of course, there are people who are not fit to be parents and it is the duty of any responsible State to protect their children.
But over the five years since I began investigating the scandal of forced adoptions, I have found a deeply secretive system which is too often biased against basically decent families.
I have been told of routine dishonesty by social workers and questionable evidence given by doctors which has wrongly condemned mothers.
Meanwhile, millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been given to councils to encourage them to meet high Government targets on child adoptions.
Under New Labour policy, Tony Blair changed targets in 2000 to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent to 5,400 a year.
The annual tally has now reached almost 4,000 in England and Wales – four times higher than in France, which has a similar-sized population.
Blair promised millions of pounds to councils that achieved the targets and some have already received more than £2million each in rewards for successful adoptions.
Figures recently released by the Department for Local Government and Community Cohesion show that two councils – Essex and Kent – were offered more than £2million “bonuses” over three years to encourage additional adoptions.
Four others – Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Cheshire and Hampshire – were promised an extra £1million.
This sweeping shake-up was designed for all the right reasons: to get difficult-to-place older children in care homes allocated to new parents.
But the reforms didn’t work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, social workers began to earmark babies and cute toddlers who were most easy to place in adoptive homes, leaving the more difficultto-place older children in care.
As a result, the number of over-sevens adopted has plummeted by half.
Critics – including family solicitors, MPs and midwives as well as the wronged families – report cases where young children are selected, even before birth, by social workers in order to win the bonuses.
More chillingly, parents have been told by social workers they must lose their children because, at some time in the future, they might abuse them.
One mother’s son was adopted on the grounds that there was a chance she might shout at him when he was older.
In Scotland, where there are no official targets, adoptions are a fraction of the number south of the border, even allowing for the smaller population.
What’s more, the obsessive secrecy of the system means that the public only occasionally gets an inkling of the human tragedy now unfolding across the country.
For at the heart of this adoption system are the family courts, whose hearings are conducted behind closed doors in order to protect the identity of the children involved.
Yet this secrecy threatens the centuries-old tradition of Britain’s legal system – the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
From the moment a mother is first accused of being incapable as a parent – a decision nearly always made by a social worker or doctor – the system is pitted against her.
There are no juries in family courts, only a lone judge or trio of magistrates who make decisions based on the balance of probability.
Crucially, the courts’ culture of secrecy means that if a social worker lies or fabricates notes or a medical expert giving evidence makes a mistake, no one finds out and there is no retribution.
Only the workings of the homeland security service, MI5, are guarded more closely than those of the family courts.
From the time a child is named on a social services care order until the day they are adopted, the parents are breaking the law – a crime punishable by imprisonment – if they tell anyone what is happening to their family.
Anything from a chat with a neighbour to a letter sent to a friend can land them in jail.
And many have found themselves sent to prison for breaching court orders by talking about their case.
As High Court judge Mr Justice Munby told MPs last year: “It seems quite indefensible that there should be no access by the media, and no access by the public, to what is going on in courts where judges are, day by day, taking people’s children away.”
However, it is not only secretive and publicly unscrutinised family courts that are creating an injustice in our adoption system.
There is a more worrying factor involved. Look at the official figures. Why are they so high? Is it really true that more mothers are becoming potential killers or abusers?
Or are the financial bonuses offered to councils fuelling the astonishing rise in forced adoptions?
John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning to change the adoption system, said yesterday: “I have evidence that 1,000 children are wrongly being seized from their birth parents each year even though they have not been harmed in any way.
“The targets are dangerous and lead to social workers being over-eager.
“The system’s secrecy hides any wrongdoing. One has to ask if a mother is expected to have problems looking after her baby, why doesn’t the State help her instead of taking her child away?”
The MP’s concerns are echoed by the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS), a body which advises new mothers.
Spokeswoman Beverley Beech insists: “Babies are being removed from their mothers by social workers using any excuse.
“We strongly suspect this is because newborns and toddlers are more easily found homes than older children. They are a marketable commodity.
“I know of social workers making up stories about innocent mothers simply to ensure their babies are put up for adoption.
“Suitable babies are even being earmarked when they are still in the womb.
“One baby was forcibly removed in the maternity ward by social workers before the mother had even finished the birth process and produced the placenta.”
Her words may be emotive. But are they true? Six months ago, I wrote an article about a young couple – who must remain anonymous because of family court law – fighting for the return of their three-year-old daughter.
She was taken within weeks of birth and is about to be adopted.
Astonishingly, a judge has issued a Draconian order gagging them from revealing anything, to anyone at all, which could identify their daughter until her 18th birthday in 2022.
Immediately after the article was published, I heard from 35 families whose children were forcibly removed.
The letters and e-mails continue to arrive – coming from a wide range of families across the social classes (including from a castle in the heart of England).
An e-mail from one father said: “Please, please help, NOW. We are about to lose our son . . . in court tomorrow for final disposals hearing before he is taken for adoption … we have done nothing wrong.”
Another father calling himself “James” rang to say his wife’s baby was one of eight seized by social workers from hospital maternity units in one small part of North-East England during one fortnight last summer.
A Welsh man complained that his grandson of three weeks was earmarked for forcible adoption by social workers.
The mother, a 21-year-old with a mild learning disorder, was told she might, just might, get post-natal depression and neglect her son.
To her great distress, her baby was put in the care of Monmouthshire social services within minutes of birth.
The grandfather said: “Our entire extended family – which includes two nurses, a qualified nanny and a police officer – have offered to help care for the baby.
“I believe my grandson has been targeted for adoption since he was in the womb.”
A Worcestershire woman told how her daughter’s baby was snatched away by three police officers and two social workers who came to the door of her house.
The girl has now been adopted.
The mother’s failure? She was said to be too young to cope.
Yet – a little over a year later – she had another baby, a boy, whom she was allowed to keep, in the same home and with the same partner.
Why on earth did she have to lose her little girl?
The grandmother emotionally explained: “All the family came forward to offer to help look after my granddaughter, and all of them were told they were not good enough.
“The social worker told us to forget her. He said: ‘She is water under the bridge.’
“We think they wanted her for adoption from the beginning.”
No wonder she, and thousands of other parents, want a shake-up of the heart-breakingly cruel adoption system which has ripped apart so many families – and which continues to do so.

How social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoptionBy SUE REIDLast updated at 23:10 31 January 2008

National disgrace: The number of babies taken from their mothers and put up for adoption is rising sharplyFor a mother, there can be no greater horror than having a baby snatched away by the State at birth.The women to whom it has happened say their lives are ruined for ever – and goodness knows what longterm effect it has on the child.Most never recover from this trauma.Imagine a baby growing in your body for nine months, imagine going through the emotion of bringing it into the world, only to have social workers seize the newborn, sometimes within minutes of its first cry and often on the flimsiest of excuses.Yet this disturbing scenario is played out every day.The number of babies under one month old being taken into care for adoption is now running at almost four a day (a 300 per cent increase over a decade).In total, 75 children of all ages are being removed from their parents every week before being handed over to new families.Some of these may have been willingly given up for adoption, but critics of the Government’s policy are convinced that the vast majority are taken by force.Time and again, the mothers say they are innocent of any wrongdoing.Of course, there are people who are not fit to be parents and it is the duty of any responsible State to protect their children.
But over the five years since I began investigating the scandal of forced adoptions, I have found a deeply secretive system which is too often biased against basically decent families.I have been told of routine dishonesty by social workers and questionable evidence given by doctors which has wrongly condemned mothers.Meanwhile, millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been given to councils to encourage them to meet high Government targets on child adoptions.Under New Labour policy, Tony Blair changed targets in 2000 to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent to 5,400 a year.The annual tally has now reached almost 4,000 in England and Wales – four times higher than in France, which has a similar-sized population.Blair promised millions of pounds to councils that achieved the targets and some have already received more than £2million each in rewards for successful adoptions.Figures recently released by the Department for Local Government and Community Cohesion show that two councils – Essex and Kent – were offered more than £2million “bonuses” over three years to encourage additional adoptions.Four others – Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Cheshire and Hampshire – were promised an extra £1million.This sweeping shake-up was designed for all the right reasons: to get difficult-to-place older children in care homes allocated to new parents.But the reforms didn’t work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, social workers began to earmark babies and cute toddlers who were most easy to place in adoptive homes, leaving the more difficultto-place older children in care.As a result, the number of over-sevens adopted has plummeted by half.Critics – including family solicitors, MPs and midwives as well as the wronged families – report cases where young children are selected, even before birth, by social workers in order to win the bonuses.More chillingly, parents have been told by social workers they must lose their children because, at some time in the future, they might abuse them.One mother’s son was adopted on the grounds that there was a chance she might shout at him when he was older.In Scotland, where there are no official targets, adoptions are a fraction of the number south of the border, even allowing for the smaller population.What’s more, the obsessive secrecy of the system means that the public only occasionally gets an inkling of the human tragedy now unfolding across the country.For at the heart of this adoption system are the family courts, whose hearings are conducted behind closed doors in order to protect the identity of the children involved.Yet this secrecy threatens the centuries-old tradition of Britain’s legal system – the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.From the moment a mother is first accused of being incapable as a parent – a decision nearly always made by a social worker or doctor – the system is pitted against her.There are no juries in family courts, only a lone judge or trio of magistrates who make decisions based on the balance of probability.Crucially, the courts’ culture of secrecy means that if a social worker lies or fabricates notes or a medical expert giving evidence makes a mistake, no one finds out and there is no retribution.Only the workings of the homeland security service, MI5, are guarded more closely than those of the family courts.From the time a child is named on a social services care order until the day they are adopted, the parents are breaking the law – a crime punishable by imprisonment – if they tell anyone what is happening to their family.Anything from a chat with a neighbour to a letter sent to a friend can land them in jail.And many have found themselves sent to prison for breaching court orders by talking about their case.As High Court judge Mr Justice Munby told MPs last year: “It seems quite indefensible that there should be no access by the media, and no access by the public, to what is going on in courts where judges are, day by day, taking people’s children away.”However, it is not only secretive and publicly unscrutinised family courts that are creating an injustice in our adoption system.There is a more worrying factor involved. Look at the official figures. Why are they so high? Is it really true that more mothers are becoming potential killers or abusers?Or are the financial bonuses offered to councils fuelling the astonishing rise in forced adoptions?John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning to change the adoption system, said yesterday: “I have evidence that 1,000 children are wrongly being seized from their birth parents each year even though they have not been harmed in any way.”The targets are dangerous and lead to social workers being over-eager.”The system’s secrecy hides any wrongdoing. One has to ask if a mother is expected to have problems looking after her baby, why doesn’t the State help her instead of taking her child away?”The MP’s concerns are echoed by the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS), a body which advises new mothers.Spokeswoman Beverley Beech insists: “Babies are being removed from their mothers by social workers using any excuse.”We strongly suspect this is because newborns and toddlers are more easily found homes than older children. They are a marketable commodity.”I know of social workers making up stories about innocent mothers simply to ensure their babies are put up for adoption.”Suitable babies are even being earmarked when they are still in the womb.”One baby was forcibly removed in the maternity ward by social workers before the mother had even finished the birth process and produced the placenta.”Her words may be emotive. But are they true? Six months ago, I wrote an article about a young couple – who must remain anonymous because of family court law – fighting for the return of their three-year-old daughter.She was taken within weeks of birth and is about to be adopted.Astonishingly, a judge has issued a Draconian order gagging them from revealing anything, to anyone at all, which could identify their daughter until her 18th birthday in 2022.Immediately after the article was published, I heard from 35 families whose children were forcibly removed.The letters and e-mails continue to arrive – coming from a wide range of families across the social classes (including from a castle in the heart of England).An e-mail from one father said: “Please, please help, NOW. We are about to lose our son . . . in court tomorrow for final disposals hearing before he is taken for adoption … we have done nothing wrong.”Another father calling himself “James” rang to say his wife’s baby was one of eight seized by social workers from hospital maternity units in one small part of North-East England during one fortnight last summer.A Welsh man complained that his grandson of three weeks was earmarked for forcible adoption by social workers.The mother, a 21-year-old with a mild learning disorder, was told she might, just might, get post-natal depression and neglect her son.To her great distress, her baby was put in the care of Monmouthshire social services within minutes of birth.The grandfather said: “Our entire extended family – which includes two nurses, a qualified nanny and a police officer – have offered to help care for the baby.”I believe my grandson has been targeted for adoption since he was in the womb.”A Worcestershire woman told how her daughter’s baby was snatched away by three police officers and two social workers who came to the door of her house.The girl has now been adopted.The mother’s failure? She was said to be too young to cope.Yet – a little over a year later – she had another baby, a boy, whom she was allowed to keep, in the same home and with the same partner.Why on earth did she have to lose her little girl?The grandmother emotionally explained: “All the family came forward to offer to help look after my granddaughter, and all of them were told they were not good enough.”The social worker told us to forget her. He said: ‘She is water under the bridge.'”We think they wanted her for adoption from the beginning.”No wonder she, and thousands of other parents, want a shake-up of the heart-breakingly cruel adoption system which has ripped apart so many families – and which continues to do so.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511609/How-social-services-paid-bonuses-snatch-babies-adoption.html#ixzz0goXpE7Uv

The shameful secrecy of the adoption system

Last updated at 21:40 01 February 2008

baby in cot

Sinister pattern: The number of babies under a month taken into care for adoption has increased considerably in a decade

It seems inconceivable that such things could happen in a modern civilised country…two hours after giving birth, the young mother was lying in her hospital bed when officials from Nottingham social services snatched her baby away.

The damage that this must inflict on the mother, let alone the child, is almost impossible to conceive.

But what makes the case worse is that the social workers acted without legal authority.

For the moment, Mr Justice Munby has ordered the child reunited with its mother.

But the really disturbing aspect is that far from being an isolated incident, it seems to be part of a sinister pattern.

The number of babies under one month being taken into care for adoption is now four a day, a 300 per cent increase on a decade ago.

What is more disturbing is that social services have arguably been encouraged to behave in this way by a financial incentive, introduced by Tony Blair to increase the number of adoptions.

Instead of trying to place the more difficult older children with parents, local authorities have been concentrating on babies, for whom it is far easier to find adoptive parents.

Meanwhile, the number of seven-year-olds being adopted has halved.

Mr Blair’s perverse incentive is being quietly abolished, but the damage has been done.

This deeply worrying scenario is made worse by the cloak of secrecy surrounding the family courts, where parents are unable to challenge – or even talk about – their decisions, however perverse.

Last year, the same judge, Mr Munby, told MPs that “it seems quite indefensible that there should be no access by the media, and no access by the public, to what is going on in courts where judges are, day by day, taking people’s children away”.

Today, the judge could take that girl’s baby away again, and we wouldn’t be allowed to know anything about how that decision was reached.

If the mother tried to defend herself in public, she would go to prison.

Of course, vulnerable children must be protected, and social workers have impossible judgments to make. But officials must act within the law.

Judges must think more carefully before shattering that all-important bond between a newborn baby and its mother.

And the family courts, like the rest of the legal system, must be opened up to proper public scrutiny.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511604/The-shameful-secrecy-adoption-system.html#ixzz0goYUK93G

Women try to stop babies being taken into care by fleeing to Spain

(Solarpix.com)

The Smiths’ baby son was born in Spain, where the parents had fled after their other child had been taken into care by social workers

Alice Fishburn

RECOMMEND? (55)

A pregnant British woman has fled to Spain with her parents to prevent her unborn baby being taken into care by social services, despite an offer by the child’s grandparents to foster her.

Megan Coote, 21, is one of two British women who have escaped to Spain after threats by Suffolk social services to remove their babies. The infants were born last week two days apart and are now neighbours.

Their cases reflect what John Hemming, a Lib Dem MP and chairman of Justice for Families, believes is a growing phenomenon. “It is clear that nothing is being done to sort the family courts out and so more people are thinking of simply emigrating,” he said.

The second British woman, Carissa Smith, 32, arrived in Spain over Christmas with her husband, Jim, £300, three cats and their baby on the way. Mr Smith reckons he has spoken to dozens of couples who have made a similar decision. “There’s so many people who want to go back but are frightened,” he said. “It is a horrible way to live. Nobody wants to leave their country, family and friends, but you have to.” Their name has been changed for legal reasons.

The birth of the Smiths’ son brings back painful memories of the daughter they no longer see. Carissa had a psychologist’s diagnosis of factitious illness, which used to be known as Münchausen’s syndrome by proxy, in 2008. The same psychologist later changed the diagnosis to narcissistic personality disorder, but their daughter was already in care. Although experts said there was no immediate risk to the child, social services said she could face emotional abuse in future. When Carissa became pregnant again, the Smiths decided to move abroad.

Tim Yeo, the couple’s MP, suggested in Parliament that Suffolk social workers acted in the Smith case in a manner “sometimes tantamount to child kidnapping”. That the Coote family fled the same authority “rather bears out the theory I had that the department intervenes not with the aim of helping couples become good parents but of separating vulnerable couples from their baby”, Mr Yeo told The Times.

In the case of Ms Coote, who has mild learning difficulties, her parents offered to foster their grandchild. When she became pregnant, her midwife went to social services with concerns about her emotional maturity. A psychological assessment suggested that she would not be capable of looking after the baby. Her parents disagreed, but volunteered as guardians. The baby was due but social services told them that the process would take 12 weeks and could not promise that the baby would not be put forward for adoption beforehand.

When Jim Smith learnt that the Cootes were moving away, he rang to offer them space in his new house.

Suffolk social services would not comment on individual cases. However, Simon White, director of Children and Young People’s Services, said: “Children’s services work hard to support parents and families so that children can remain in their own families. No decisions can be made before assessments which determine whether the child in question can be adequately cared for by the natural parents or within the extended family.”

Some warn that children who have been noted by social services as at risk may face further dangers abroad. Barbara Hopkin, of the Association of Lawyers for Children, was involved in a case in which a mother fled to Spain, fearing that her unborn child would be removed. The baby died, smothered when her drunken boyfriend rolled on it. “Other countries are much less interventionist and our system is generally much better,” Ms Hopkin said.

But Mr Yeo believed that more support for families at home was necessary. “It’s a tragedy that loving couples should have to flee Britain to feel safe to bring up their own baby. It’s a terrible situation for any family and rather a serious indictment of the way the system of support is operating.”

The Cootes feel that they have been let down by social services. “I employ people. I pay my taxes. I abide by the law,” Mr Coote said. “I didn’t think that my country was going to kick me in the teeth.” He is now battling to find a way to reunite his family in the United Kingdom where he still runs a business and his son is in school.

For the Smiths, Spain is home. But their plan to celebrate their baby’s return from hospital yesterday was marred by a visit from Spanish authorities. They had been alerted by Suffolk social services. “They are being really nice but we’ve got a weekend of worry ahead,” said Mr Smith.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article7043475.ece

‘Uppity’ parents who challenge the authorities ‘risk having children taken away’

“Uppity” parents who challenge doctors or councils over their children’s upbringing are increasingly at risk of having them taken away, it has been claimed.

By John Bingham

Published: 4:32PM BST 06 Sep 2009

Local authorities are using proceedings in the family courts as “retaliation” against parents who question doctors’ diagnoses of their children or challenge other decisions, according to an MP.

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who coordinates a campaign called Justice for Families, which calls for reform of the family court system, said that the practice was becoming common.

“Very often care proceedings are used as retaliation by local authorities against ‘uppity’ people who question the system,” he told a Sunday newspaper.

One family reportedly had all six of their children taken into care after they questioned the need for an invasive medical test on their daughter who was suspected of having a blood disease.

Although the girl later tested negative for the condition, an emergency protection order remained in place

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/6146654/Uppity-parents-who-challenge-the-authorities-risk-having-children-taken-away.html

Family courts system accused of hiding evidence from parents

Kaya Burgess

RECOMMEND? (86)

(Chris Harris/The Times)

Marc Tufano has not seen his two sons for seven years

Parents fighting in the family courts for contact with their children are being denied access to their personal files by a corrupt system, a leading parental rights campaigner has said.

Alison Stevens, head of Parents Against Injustice, has called for Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, to force social services and individual courts to comply with the Data Protection Act.

She said: “Local authorities have to send the requested files within 40 days . . . but they are often not following public law guidelines. It’s corruption within the system. They are playing God, and there must be some reason why — perhaps to hide things they have got wrong in the cases.”

Evidence is gathered from a variety of sources before children are taken from their parents in family courts. Tracking down and obtaining these documents can be very difficult because they are held by various bodies and must be applied for in different ways.

Ms Stevens said: “Parents should be entitled to their files — not just social services files but all files: from health visitors, GPs, different hospitals, the ambulance trust, psychologist reports, paediatrician notes and so on.”

The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has written to all MPs calling for a parliamentary review into the operation of the family courts. He said: “One of the ways legal practitioners prevent parents from fighting cases is by not giving them the paperwork. Often the paperwork doesn’t add up, so if parents got hold of it they would see what was going on.”

Many parents have welcomed the call for greater accountability. Roland Simpkin (not his real name) received his social services files seven years after his children were taken into care in 2001 amid allegations of abuse.

When the allegations were shown to be unfounded, he sought to obtain the evidence held on him by social services to find out why he was still not allowed to see his children.

He was sent his files last year, after pursuing his case through a series of letters, complaints and court orders, but he found that parts of the notes had been crossed through with black pen, words had been deleted and sections of paragraphs had been removed during photocopying.

Mr Simpkin said: “Despite being repeatedly found not to have harmed or posed a risk of harm to \ children or anybody else’s, the sheer amount of delay introduced by the sluggishness of the social services department to share information is likely to be a serious negative factor in any potential repeated contact \.”

In another case, Marc Tufano, an actor who has appeared in EastEnders and The Bill, has not seen his two sons for seven years because he cannot obtain the documents that he needs to bring his case to appeal.

His children were given residence with his partner in 2003 after their relationship broke down. Though he immediately tried to launch an appeal, he said that he had found it impossible to obtain transcripts of the original court hearings because the court authorities had been slow to reply to his requests and had since claimed to have destroyed the documents.

Mr Tufano said: “I have begged these government agents to leave me alone so as I can see my sons without being harassed by endless arguments over the paperwork they require. It is made impossible for parents to get hold of the documents they need.”

Case study: I fired six sets of solicitors

Sezgi Kapur’s two daughters were taken from her in 2003 amid allegations that her violent attitude towards care professionals could be harmful to her children, allegations she denies.

Before the hearings in the family court, her requests for her social services files were ignored or denied, and she was forced to apply for court orders to disclose the documents. Without them, Ms Kapur was unable to respond to the evidence gathered against her by social services and care workers, and so was unable to fight her case effectively.

After the files were provided, she discovered that the minutes from high-level social services meetings about her case had been withheld and that memos had been circulated to those who attended asking them to “destroy all previous copies” of notes from the meeting.

Ms Kapur said: “These meetings painted a picture of me as a volatile, aggressive, threatening individual who was alienating professionals, who might one day emotionally harm my children through this purported alienation. It was incredible to read this.

“I fired six sets of solicitors because they failed to get disclosure of all my documents. If the parents do not get a fair trial, the children do not either.”

Shaun O’Connell, a lay adviser working on behalf of Environmental Law Centre, said: “If you’re not familiar with the Data Protection Act and you don’t know the format and structure, it’s impossible.”

Names have been changed

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6188481.ece

Family courts are open, but parents will still struggle to win

Commentary: Camilla Cavendish

RECOMMEND?

The doors of the family courts are now open. But the odds remain stacked against some parents involved in care proceedings in three ways.

First, many parents have contacted The Times because they have not been able to get hold of documents to which they are entitled under the Data Protection Act, including hospital X-rays and social services files. In extreme cases, parents allege that lengthy delays have led to their child being adopted before they could mount an appeal. Campaigners are calling for proper sanctions against authorities that fail to meet the 40-day rule.

Second, many care cases rely heavily on the testimony of expert witnesses appointed by the court, but parents are rarely allowed to call another expert in their defence. In the Court of Appeal in 2007 Mr Justice Ryder found that a baby had been wrongly removed from his parents for the first, most formative year of his life, partly because an expert neurologist had been “too absolute”.

Two courts had refused to let the parents seek a second medical opinion. The reforms by Jack Straw will allow parents to pass information about proceedings to outside experts, but it will still be up to the court to decide whether a second opinion may be heard.

Third, continuing reform of the legal aid budget has become a serious threat to justice for the families who need it most. Many barristers and solicitors have already reduced their legal aid work since the Government changed the fee structure. Others have dropped the work altogether, prompting a rapid rise in the number of litigants in person. The latest government proposals for fixed fees for barristers undertaking family legal aid work could leave some of the most vulnerable families without representation. That is not justice.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6188546.ece

Message for Peter Traves

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 7:32 am

http://eclectech.co.uk/pantsquirrel.php?i=cggD

The state sector’s big evil: it does not sack

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 3:59 am
It has not been a great week for the state sector. On Friday, Basildon University hospital pleaded guilty to health and safety failings over the death of a severely disabled young man. His mother, Gill Flack, called for bosses to be “held accountable” and demanded “staff sackings”. She might as well have cried for the moon.
One mother’s impotent rage is just another example of the gulf that has opened up between the state and the private sector. Not only do state sector workers enjoy more generous pensions; they also have better job security. However horrific is the offence, rarely is anyone brought to book, let alone sacked. Instead, we are fobbed off with platitudes. “Systems have been revised” and “lessons learnt”. How many lessons does it take to learn that it is not a good idea to kill people?
Sir Stanley Kalms, the former head of Dixons and one of the more unlikely past chairmen of a National Health Service hospital, discovered how extensive is the culture of job security — and at whose expense — when he threw a tea party. He had decided that staff who had served for more than 25 years deserved a reward. It proved a revelation. Neither he nor anyone in the hospital had ever seen the majority who turned up. Some were ill, others grotesquely overweight, “all no longer fit and proper people to be in a hospital”. But they were still on the payroll.
This had serious repercussions. The hospital could not afford to employ them and the nurses it needed. So wards remained short-staffed and patients inadequately nursed. “The system does not eject. It is a great evil in the system,” said Kalms.
Examples of that “great evil” abounded last week. In healthcare, social services and education, those responsible for shocking treatment of the public remain untouched and even flourish. The report on the scandal in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust points to up to 1,200 unnecessary deaths, including four from one family alone within 18 months. Patients were left lying on the floor in their own filth, sobbing with humiliation. But not a single individual has been publicly blamed in this officially “elite” NHS organisation. Indeed, Martin Yeates, its former chief executive, has since left with a £1m pension pot, six months’ salary and a reported £400,000 payoff.
Seven-year-old Khyra Ishaq starved to death over five months. None of the five social workers involved has been disciplined, despite a High Court judge describing the case as “beyond belief”. The policeman who left two police dogs in a car on a hot summer’s day got more flak — but then he was prosecuted by the RSPCA, a far more formidable body.
It is not just the particular case. Two sets of government figures also out last week make clear that failing to “eject” and the “great evil” this causes is systemic throughout the state sector.
Take teachers, for example. We have a state education system that is failing children at every level. It fails even to teach something as basic as literacy — achieved by a lot poorer countries than ours. At 14 well over half of white boys on free school meals have a reading age of a seven-year-old or less. With figures like these, you might think that somewhere in England’s 450,000 workforce lurked the odd incompetent teacher. Well, you would be wrong — or very nearly. In the past nine years only 78 teachers have appeared before the panel of the General Teaching Council for England over alleged incompetence. Only 12 were actually suspended.
It is even worse in the NHS. Another government report out last week makes grim reading. Almost 50,000 NHS patients a year are dying while suffering from malnutrition in English hospitals. Many elderly patients arrive malnourished but studies show their condition deteriorates once in hospital.
When I spent a year investigating NHS hospitals, I saw for myself that patients, particularly elderly patients, were just not getting fed. Meals were placed out of reach or taken away before they had time to finish. Nobody bothered to help them or checked that they had eaten. One woman I spoke to had not eaten for 48 hours. “They did offer me a teacake which had been in the fridge for months. I had to throw it away.” But I never saw a nurse, sister or modern matron reprimanded, let alone threatened with the sack. In the majority of cases nobody even noticed.
Why is the state sector so timid on our behalf? It is not just the public that suffers. Failure to pull up lazy or arrogant staff demoralises those who work hard and care about their job. One teacher in an inner-city school dismissed half the staff as failing. “I would hate them teaching my children,” he said. Yet they were never censured. Indeed, they were sometimes better rewarded than those teachers who worked hard to inspire their pupils, arranged after-school clubs and stayed late.
As the tutor remarked bitterly: “Your students can go on failing but as long as you can justify it, as long as you create a folder of evidence for your continuing professional development, you move smoothly on to the next pay level.”
So why is this happening? The education council put it down to a mixture of “hard ball, soft ball”. Union pressure is the hard ball — 61% of state employees belong to a union compared with 20% in the private sector. Union pressure is not going away any time soon. In 2006 Labour received a total of £11.8m in donations, of which £8.6m came from the trade unions — 73% of the total. The recession has left Labour more reliant on the unions for funding.
Soft ball is the culture of the state sector itself. As one chief executive of an NHS hospital put it: “We are a caring profession. But sometimes we put caring for our colleagues above caring for our patients.”
A senior non-executive director described some of the managers in her trust as “not up to the job”. This did not mean she could sack them. “The NHS”, she explained, “does not like facing noise.” A manager in social services remarked: “Time and time again I have said, ‘So-and-so is incompetent’, only to be reproved — ‘Yes, but they are awfully nice’.” A modern matron complained that discipline in the no-blame culture of the NHS is a “long-winded process”. Modern management is meant to “nurture” employees. The errant state worker is offered training and supervision and given another chance. This can go on for a year. “In the meantime,” said the former matron, “patients are going through her hands and suffering.”
The easiest way of getting rid of “awfully nice” people is to promote them elsewhere. Special project work, “reconfiguring the system” or checking up on everyone else is always popular.
But there is more than culture to blame here. In the private sector you know when you have done a good job. When the government is your boss, it is far from clear. Gordon Brown, for example, is threatening to “strike off” those hospital managers at fault at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. He is being disingenuous.
It was the pursuit of targets set by the government that led to a “fundamental break of NHS values”. That dislocation of aims applies across the state sector: children’s services in Haringey, north London, received a glowing, three-star report from Ofsted even as Baby P died.
Over and over again I have seen, in schools, social services and hospitals, the attention of managers wholly taken up by the demands of the centre. The flood of targets and initiatives blinds them to what is going on in the classroom or on the ward.
Making politicians look good too often has come at the expense of the public in their care. The state sector can no longer both act as a public relations machine for the government and give mothers such as Gill Flack redress. The mess-ups last week prove it

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7043961.ece

February 27, 2010

More Evidence of Abuse and Cover Ups

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 7:01 am

I have recently recieved files from the Local Authority and no wonder they fought hard for 2 yrs to prevent me having access.

Two children assaulted by two seperate foster carers !!!!!

Allowed to remain in placements ?

No police were called to investigate ?

This is very serious stuff i am unsure at the moment what avenue to go down with this.

No doubt i will be fobbed off again by the relevant departments !

WATCH THIS SPACE !!!

February 25, 2010

How To Fight The Family Law System Part I (Revised)

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 8:23 am

By a parent who is still fighting the system.

On 12 May 2008, a CAFCASS operative and social worker calling herself Helen Fountain contacted me informing me that she had been instructed to our case by Nottingham City Council Social and Children’s Services Department via one Maxine Agatha Rose. By 2 March 2009, she had, with the aid of several Family Panel solicitors (Rosamund Evans, Graham Neil, Chet Desai, Rebecca Wimble, Stephen Mannering, Beryl Giliad) and a Family court Judge (District Judge Melvyn Harris), managed to secure for herself a fat bonus in her salary by having my youngest three children (12, 8 and 6 years) removed to Social Services care at an independent fostering placement – itself a breach of the Care Standards Act 2000 section 29 and the Children Act 1989 Section 79X, both of which stipulate a period of not more than six months between the date of filing and the commencement of proceedings (it was decided at the final hearing that the date of filing should also be the date at which their so-called threshold conditions were met – that being 30 April 2008. Yes. TEN MONTHS bar a couple days before the case was heard). That same week, someone broke the law yet again by changing the children’s doctor without consulting or informing us. We found out about this six weeks later. At the last Looked After Child Review conference, at which about half those directly responsible for our loss attended, it was suggested that the children also change school. This was vehemently denied by ourselves, as this would mean that we would only be able to see the children on SS whim and at no other time. As it is, we get to see them once a week for one hour. We are allowed no telephone, letter or email contact, and we get to see them unsupervised only on the odd occasion that they’re out in the school playground when we pass by the school.

Frontline Social Workers

These people are often the first point of contact between parents and the Family Court system. These people may or may not be “qualified” in social care, they may or may not be registered in the GSCC register. If they’re not registered, they’re breaking the law by pretending they’re something they’re not. If they are and pretend they’re not social workers, they are again breaking the law. Caroline Elizabeth Norman is BREAKING THE LAW BY NOT REVEALING THAT SHE IS IN FACT A GSCC REGISTERED SOCIAL WORKER.

It is the job of these people not to protect children’s interests, but to protect their own. To do this they need low-risk cases (low-income families, those who are pretty much off the grid, fall into postal codes where the general credit rating is far below the national average – these are families who cannot afford to employ their own solicitors) where they first assess the parents in what they consider friendly surroundings through people that aren’t social workers – often people with degrees or training in psychology. These people pick out the smallest foibles in the parents (including their distant past history) and use these to help SS build their case against the parents.

At this point, when the SS believe they have the beginnings of a case, the threats start. They use their perceived powers of persuasion to coerce the parents into signing “contract agreements” which aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, to get them to attend parenting and anger management classes, by which they further build their case that one or both parents aren’t quite up to the task of bringing up children in the “normal” sense of the term. These threats to remove the children because of some perceived threat of abuse are made in the presence of the children, who’s minds the SS are already starting to poison.

It is important to note, that even though one or both parents may be cooperating fully with SS, their attendance at these classes and group therapy sessions is seen as SS as signs of a guilty conscience. Further building on their case. Those parents who do not cooperate are seen as mentally ill (those who throw abuse at SS operatives), or obstructive for the sake of being obstructive. The SS may decide to make a case of immediate peril in these cases, and have the children removed on an Emergency Protection Order.

During meetings with SS, which are often interagency meetings where they seem to go over minutiae from previous meetings, they will sometimes ask direct questions of the parents which are designed to trip the parents up. Such a question may take the form “Have you stopped beating your wife?” which as given is an obvious trip-up. It is, therefore, absolutely vital that you take an audio recorder (best bet is an mp3 player with full memory capacity and a fresh battery) and record the entire meeting from the second you step through the car park to the second you step off. When you get home with the recording, take a full transcript of the meeting, who said what and when, etc., and file both for later use in court. You do not have to warn the meeting that they’re being recorded, in fact it’s best you don’t warn them at any point. Anything they say in those meetings can legally be used as transcribed in court as evidence should they perjure themselves (and they will!). Also, do not give copies of these recordings to anybody involved in the case, least of all any Family Panel or CLA solicitor, as they can and do forward such information to SS who will use such recordings to demonstrate your “mental instability and further evidence that you are incapable as a parent”.

Professional Losers

ANY lawyer who works under the Legal Aid Scheme (now known as Community Legal Advice, and administered by the Legal Services Commission) is known throughout the legal industry as a “Professional Loser” for a very good reason.

CLA claimants who employ solicitors to fight their case basically greenlight payments from the CLA Fund to their solicitor, which the solicitor or their firm invoices at the conclusion of the case. These solicitors are not paid by performance (ie they don’t get paid more for winning your case), they’re paid a flat rate, more often than not per day or per half day. What this means in practice, is that they have no incentive to work on your case beyond the illusion that they’re actually doing something. Which is usually evidenced by nothing more than a fat stack of academic research barely relevant to your case. What, you thought that five thousand sheets and a big fat briefcase was all just for you?

Family Panel solicitors are those who have special training above and beyond normal criminal or civil law. These individuals are experts at misleading their clients, particularly when it comes to constructing their case documentation, employing specialist witnesses (which are selected by the SS lawyers and CAFCASS to further bolster their case), and cross examinations in court. Certainly, all the right questions may be asked, but in such a way as to not help your case at all. Most importantly, these individuals who are meant to fighting in your corner do the most damage to your case by advising you not to try calling your own specialist witnesses, your own children, your extended family, character witnesses, or witnesses to events – these would “harm your case”.

If anything, if anyone recommends you take legal advice, the best thing to do would be to go do your own research. Find out about the Human Rights Acts of the UK and the Conventions on Human Rights of Europe, and the UN Convention on Human Rights, the Children and young Persons Act of 1989 (and as amended), and the Offences Against The Person Act.

CAFCASS

These people are invariably degree-qualified and registered social workers. They do not, as much as they may protest to the contrary, act in the best interests and according to the feelings and wishes of your children. They work to the same agenda as Social Services. That is, they find an easy mark and move in for the kill. It is usually the same CAFCASS operative who sits through the entire case, as opposed to SS staff who seem to go through a six week turnaround.

CAFCASS are not only employed as consultants by the Courts, they also take instruction from the Family Panel solicitors and from the social workers assigned to your case. This is never a good thing.

To help build their case, CAFCASS spend no more than four hours in total with your children and ask them about the negative aspects of their home lives (eg do your parents shout at you, hit you, deprive you, ever say no to you, etc), and use the noninformation they gather to build the emotional harm side of the case against you. It is this part of the case which SS most rely on, so if CAFCASS insist that they speak to your children on a one-to-one basis, tell them to get a court order and have someone on your side (not a solicitor!) attend all meetings between your children and CAFCASS, and most importantly of all, have a video camera handy to record these sessions. Since CAFCASS meetings are invariably conducted in home surroundings, you have the right to do this, so do not allow anyone to tell you otherwise or force you to turn off the camera.

How to be fobbed off and ignored by a Local Authority ( selection of some of the emails sent to them )

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 7:47 am

I do apologise many of these are individual emails sent i am having problems with my blog and cant seperate sone individually but i think you will get the picture.

Admittance of alcohol problems in his team !!!

J

Thank you for this.  We do in fact work with ADSIS as a responsible employer recognizing that in any very large organisation there may at any one time be people who have an alcohol problem.

Peter

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 09 September 2009 08:36
To: ; David KIDNEY; Traves, Peter (C&LL); Ramsdale, Deborah (C&LL)
Subject: assessments

May I also add that i believe based on reports your staff have written that i may add to my diagnosis delusional and feelings of grandiose.And after seeing the graphs in your own reports on staff that have had time off for mental illness and the lists of illnesses they have that all your staff are sent for assessments as their children may be at risk. I hear there is a psychiatrist called Dr Hibbert who will be able to carry out a thorough assessment for only £50.000 per person.

May i also suggest that having seen the graph for your staff and how much they drink above the recommended level each week that you send them to ADSIS where they can learn all about units , triggers and attend a relapse prevention course and that they are also referred to AA.

I hope this advice is very useful to you

Regards

J

Now for some proof of being ignored and complaints and requests not dealt with

I would like to bring to your attention some facts
1. two of my children were removed for domestic violence 3 months AFTER my ex partner and i had split up
2. The same children were placed before an adoption panel based on incorrect evidence which your local authority has had PROOF of in the prescence of my solicitor.
3,This is in breech of the data protection act as all information held should be accurate.
4. this is being investigated.
5. The information commisioner has taken on the case.
6. this local authority has failed to implement recommendations given by guardian at litem
7.this authority illegally stopped my contact with my child
8.this authority committed contempt of court and discussed my case in public cafe
9.this authority failed to listen to experts in court and implement their recommendations
10. this authority has never supported me as your legislation states you should
11. my baby was taken into care because i tried to protect him and asked for help so he would not see me distressed
i would like your response to these issues please and will forward this to mr kidney also

I would like to bring to your attention some facts 1. two of my children were removed for domestic violence 3 months AFTER my ex partner and i had split up 2. The same children were placed before an adoption panel based on incorrect evidence which your local authority has had PROOF of in the prescence of my solicitor. 3,This is in breech of the data protection act as all information held should be accurate. 4. this is being investigated. 5. The information commisioner has taken on the case. 6. this local authority has failed to implement recommendations given by guardian at litem 7.this authority illegally stopped my contact with my child 8.this authority committed contempt of court and discussed my case in public cafe 9.this authority failed to listen to experts in court and implement their recommendations 10. this authority has never supported me as your legislation states you should 11. my baby was taken into care because i tried to protect him and asked for help so he would not see me distressed i would like your response to these issues please and will forward this to mr kidney also

my son  disclosed at lac review yesterday that his previous foster carer pushed him on to the settee i demand a full investigation myself and his current foster mother heard him.

07/04/09

IT IS WORTH NOTING THIS ASSAULT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE IN NOVEMBER 2007 AND WAS DELIBERATELY HIDDEN FROM ME


Could you give me more detail.  You have not said who you are.  You have not said who it is you are asking to investigate.

Peter Traves


you should know who i am you have sent dissapointing replies to my mp david kidney i have spoken to sarah peace and andrew jenkinson this morning maybe speak to them then when justice is done i would request my baby is returned home thankyou

I might have known if you had signed the email – you did not

Peter Traves


WORTH NOTING MY NAME IS MY EMAIL ADDRESS

I am not sure why you are being rude about this.  As you know people often send emails from addresses that not their own.  I am sure you will acknowledge that it would have been helpful to put your name on the email and to give a little more detail.
Peter Traves

i am sorry but i have been fobbed off by this la for 2 years im sure you will appreciate my frustration
please refer to all previous emails by myself to your department including the one i sent a week ago
having just had a conversation with andrew jenkinson stating you have proof of concerns as to why i should not have baby back please provide evidence and not just opinion based evidence as i have plenty of proof of the contrary
I have asked Sally Rees to investigate this further and to get back to you
Peter Traves

Please confirm what you have asked Sally Rees to investigate i would hope that my whole case is looked at given the evidence that this LA are in breech of data protection act. That this LA has broken the law as per childrens act and now allegations made by my son of abuse in foster care and i would hope you will look at returning my baby to my care given that i have never harmed him and experts at court recommended his return before christmas and given that i have always co-operated with LA  and stuck to written agreement.
Thanks
I have not asked Sally to open a full investigation at this stage.  I want her to evaluate the situation for me and advise me on the next actions if any are to be taken.
Peter Traves

well i think a full investigation should take place in respect of not only child a’s claims but also
1.false information being presented to permanency panel
2.breech of the data protection act
3.taking children away from me for domestic violence 3 months after my partner and i had seperated.
4. making it part of a written agreement i attended womens aid which i did for two years yet LA never contacted them for reports and didnt invite my worker to core groups and conferences.
5.failing to take seriously my childrens disclosures surrounding dv.
6.making me stay in a mother and baby unit for 8 months despite the psychiatrist stating there was no clinical need
7.refusing to support my child coming back to me after dr george hibberts evidence that led to him being removed was thrown out of court.
8.refusing to provide respite care as recommended by two experts
9.refusing to acknowledge new treatment and diagnosis of pms
10.removing my son after i was told over the phone by louise jones that my other boys had been found long term placements which meant i could not see them for 3 months then after that only 3 times a year.This was very distressing and i rang up and asked for help as i didnt want my baby to see me distressed so as not to cause any emotional harm.That evening his nan and aunty turned up to look after him and were told by LA under no circumstances must they remove him from my house.This was despite both being police checked and vetted by yourselves.
11.Experts have said my breakdown was due to significant stressor and commended me for recognising it and asking for help
12.ever since i have been pregnant this LA have opposed me having my baby at 8 months pregnant sarah peace told me she was going to remove him at birth ( i have this and my pleas to do anything recorded)
13. I have evidence that Stafford hospital were told my son was on an EPO and that i was to remain in hospital for 7 to ten days by LA ( MY SON HAS NEVER BEEN ON AN EPO )
My contact has been reduced to just two hours a week for no good reason everyone states the quality of my contact is excellent
my list is endless i have paperwork from over three years ago and can back everything up with evidence i am kindly asking that you take this matter very seriously and return my child .I am willing to work with the LA and have stated that i dont mind you having orders on him all those who knew me as a mom to him (professionals ) have never faulted my parenting.
They have also said in reports that social services treatment of me has been relentless and other derogatory comments against your services.
If things are not put right and this witch hunt of me continues i will put all of my evidence in the public arena for all to see.
I have to say i do appreciate you replying to me personally and i do hope that at long last after 2years of this something is done.
Thankyou
maybe its elaine winstone you should question shes the one ignored my kids claims of abuse one on a child under 16 and also manager of team we are under ill name and shame if you wont
i have recieved a house of commons letter from ann widdecombe mp as she has written to baroness Delyth  Morgan regarding my case.
In Baroness Delyth  Morgans reply she has stated the law is clear children should live with their parents wherever possible and when necessary, families should be given extra support to help keep them together.
Which your LA has failed to do.
I understand that the courts are involved in your complaints and therefore it is not appropriate for me to comment in any detail on matters you raise.  I will of course forward to officers who may have issues they wish to address.
Peter Traves

you are actually misinformed the court case relating to child A and child B concluded a year ago so any information about them and matters relating to that case need to be dealt with and i can speak publicly about it.
Also as of 27th april media are now alowwed in family courts
after speaking to my babies social worker today i am now informed that he has made a statement in respect of domestic violence something he said last week he was not prepared to do before the final hearing after also recieving a phone call from womens aid stating i have rattled a lot of cages i am wondering if you can please enlighten me .
Just a note Andrew has put something in a statement about an email which i have also sent to the press i do not know his motives but suspect it is to try and ruffle the judge.Just wanted to remind you of the document submitted for court that outlines how the local authority have broken the law and also quotes the law.Also just wanted to remind you that the local authority and cafcass and their legal reps discussed my case publicly in a cafe
I have recorded foster father stating he cannot take to my son!
I also have recorded chair disclosing sons school and the fact my son id made to wear a sticker over his school logo.
In the two and a half years my kids ahave been in care i have never jeopardised their placements despite knowing by my own merits and the mistakes of your workers where they were.
I also have on tape my son describing how he was punched in the face.
Also him asking for more contact which for over two years has been ignored also when im explaining his rights as he is gillick competent the contact worker quickly butting in .
I have just been informed by my solicitor that a letter has been recieved in respect to my recording of LAC review The letter actually implies that i was allowing others such a s journalists to listen in on the meeting and womens aid who rang me during the meeting to which those who rand will know is not true.
Also the letter actually states that the recording was in respect to my babies case which aswell is not true.
Even the letter sent by social services contains that many infactual errors it only goes to clarify my point further of all the errors that have been made in my case.
In case Staffordshire local authority intend to try and use this against me I am informing you all that during a court hearing this local authority and cafcass and their respective legal representatives discussed my case openly and laughed about it in a public cafeteria in the prescence of my solicitors and this matter was bought before the court.
This was clearly contempt of court !!!!!!!!! and also a breech of confidentiality of my child and myself.
Why if there is transparency and openess and honesty ( supposedly ) Are the local authority so worried about this? ? ?
It is alot different when parents are videoed etc at cafcass and social services without permission and children are videoed and pictures placed on websites advertised for adoption.
I would hope that this is a matter for public concern
it may also be woth mentioning i have andrew jenkinson recorded on cctv snooping around my house not my fault i did not know he was coming and cctv on all the time because of domestic violence
From: John A. M. Hemming <john.hemming@john.hemming.name>
Subject: Re: LA letter
To:
Date: Friday, 24 April, 2009, 12:55 PM


You are not prevented from recording meetings, but there are issues about what is and what is not to be disclosed.

After a very interesting conversation with CARS this morning i do hope that child B IS NOW ALLOWED AN ADVOCATE as he has been denied one up to yet from this local authority DESPITE RECOMMENDATIONS made by guardian and my constant requests
I have just had a conversation with andrew jenkinson where he was very defensive regarding cctv footage and also raised the question what does this mean for CHILD c.
As my son is no longer in my care and the cctv footage covers mr jenkinson coming to my premises after Child C had been removed i do not know what he means by this had child C been in my care as explained to mr jenkinson i could perhaps see the need for such scrutiny.
I do not know how Andrew Jenkinson on cctv affaects my ability as a parent when all parenting assessments before the court are extremely positive
i will take my laptop to court which has all the emails i sent and all replies i got as evidence for the judge so that he can see for over two years this has been happening and the local authority have failed to act,investigate,uphold the law,produce evidence etc
Having just returned back from court and Andrew Jenkinson and barrister for the local authority trying to imply that my emails were consistant of a possible relapse as of my bpd diagnosis and under cross examination of an expert witness these allegations were found to be untrue i strongly urge that all my complaints are taken seriously including this one .
After local authority barrister asked the court not to make a finding of fact in respect of domestice violence based on insufficient evidence is it fair to say that the removal of my other two children for domestice violence was wrong then?
also you still not have addressed the abuse both physically , emotionally child A and child B have faced whilsT being in you care
i am about to recieve in writing evidence that andrew jenkinson has lied in a statement to court given that his team co-ordinator also fabricated things to hospital i think they should both be sacked dont you or do i have to stand outside your offices protesting with the written evidence
I presume you will ignore this as others but you have lead a witch hunt against me and i have the evidence and i think you know by now i will produce it.
Thanks
You imply in your statement i emailed the early learning centre it was id fact the european law commission and maybe you should not make assumptions
I am afraid I have not the faintest idea what you are on about.  I have made no statement.
if you read its for attention of Andrew Jenkinson who tells me all mail gets passed on to him hes one of your staff
Re K D [1998] 1 AC p.812 letter B Lord Templeman stated; ‘The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not endangered. Public authorities cannot improve on nature.’
Ed balls announces local people will sit on safeguarding boards for children id like t be the first to apply please
i now have the written evidence to prove andrew jenkinson has lied before the court and this along side sarah peaces lies and other thing being distorted i am wondering if you are going to take a serious stance on this?
i demand something is done i had call yesterday to say CHILD B has had yet another foster carer reject him what is my son going through something better be done about this and quick
two and a half years in care and very placement breaks down and he gets rejected let him come home to his mom with whatever conditions you want else im bringing it up at the channel 4 debate im attending next week
thanks
please respond as you should in compliance with the law and complaints procedure
just to inform you that i have been advised that if andrew jenkinson wants to make threats to me about jail it will need to be in an open court so all my friends and newspapers can attend also how dare he when him, louise jones,and sarah peace have committed perjury by presenting false evidence to court and deliberately lying which i have proof for and not to mention contempt of court by discussing my case in a public cafeteria with their barristers.
I notice i still have no response about my children and their suffering in your care.I have now been critised by Andrew Jenkinson for keep ringing up the department.Well im sorry but maybe some kind of response would be a professional thing to do.I now have local government ombudsman investigating you.
I have tried for 2 and a half years to speak with elaine whinstone or rebecca magregor i find it shocking that despite numerous attempts they are never available and never return calls considering staffordshire social services have caused my son more harm than good.I get very frustrated that the emotional abuse my son has suffered in your care is not being taken seriously and no manager is available to discuss it.Maybe it needs media attention as i do not know what else to do ihave emailed complaints,written complaints,rang on dozens of occasions,why am i being ignored.
I am in contact with other parents
1.was a victim of pindown scandal
2.had a son assaulted in foster care
3.bbc and daily mail rang me about the 3 children that went missing from local authority care two in stone and a boy in cheddleton
4.Andrew Jenkinson lied and made up evidence to court housing have provided written proof of this.
5.Sarah Peace told hospital staff that there was an epo on my son and i was to stay in hospital for between 7 to 10 days when there was never an epo on my son I have the nursing notes to prove this.
6.Louise Jones provided false information to a child permanency panel you have seen proof of this.
7.Elaine whinstone interviewed my son yet amazingly did not record it Myself and my son are witness to this.
8.My son was assaulted in foster care this has been reported to the police
9.My other son has been moved throughout his time in care leading to emotional abuse and a transient lifestlye.
10. You have breeched the data protection act ( all information held must be accurate ) and refuse to admit it despite me having a signed statement from Penny Naden social worker agreeing to amend details over two years ago and this still has not been done.
11.You have breeched the freedom of information act as i requested my file months ago i have email evidence and correspondance as proof.
12.A trainee social worker has lost my file with all my references in,cv,pictures,certificates etc. I have a letter from hospital proving this.
Why is it you keep ignoring this is it because you are trying to cover it up ?
I have contacted the local government ombudsman and will take this as far as i can.
After attending the failure to care debate and hearing accounts of neglect and abuse by foster carers i have to raise something with you that has been noggling me for some time .
Since being in foster care my child CHILD C has had numerous bruises, cuts etc One occasion he had bruises at both sides of his head and a blister on his hand and more recently a swollen nose.The injuuries both side of his head worried me as it did not appear consistant with a fall as i would have thought injuries would have then been on one side.I understand he was seen by a doctor but as society seems to think foster carers do not abuse and given all the failings in spotting the abuse in the baby p case this does not allieviate my fears. Also before he went into care he never had any injuries nor was there any concerns about his healh and development.
His foster carer as said such things such as hes clumbsy etc something the dr does not think he is and also he may now have speech problems.
I am wondering if these symptoms have been invented by the foster carer as an excuse.
I have seen that she cannot control him well and she made a comment to the dr about how long it will be before she can reason with him .
My child is two you cannot reason with a toddle and the drs reply was not till hes 3 or 3 and a half.
I do not have any problems with his behaviour and i do believe this foster carer is not very experienced and perhaps should not be looking after toddlers.She said she has experience of looking after 3 children which i believe were her own who have now grown up .
At the doctors i knew a hell of a lot more than she dd in respect to developments and normal behaviour i would be grateful if this could be looked into as im considering going to the police with my concerns.
Thankyou
rebecca collier just rang saying im not allowed to bring legal rep or record meeting ok thats fine ill go to the press with operationt thor barnados report on kids missing in your care ,lgo report on failures to deal with child abuse allegations and police report i have found you obviously have alot to hide
I was due to pick up childrens files today and have been informed they are not available i give you 7 days to allow me access or i shall be forced to take legal action and approach the media.
andrew attended my home today asked if i had been drinking as he could smell something ( unless it was air freshener ) which indeed it was just so you know me and you are like a game of chess i am abled to read between the lines or should i say lies i am quite sure andrew will say i had been drinkin which i had not lucky for me i had two other visitors that day one being a lib dem councillor just so you know im aware
thanks
Further to my meeting with Rebecca Collier and Elaine Price yesterday and owing to the fact that they thought the purpose of the meeting was to discuss my complaint i would like to remind you that complaints should be investigated and not merely ” discussed ” i await details of your investigative enquiries into my complaints and also my childrens files which are still not available to me you are now in breech. I therefore now will have to file a further complaint. I would also remind you that rather than try and use my complaints against me that if you actually bothered to follow the law and indeed your own complaints procedure service users would no doubt not have such a need to complain.
I look forward to hearing from you with urgency before i submit articles on this to website owners and the media.
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail and the points you
have raised.

Deborah
Deborah Ramsdale
Assistant Director – Area Based Services
Children & Lifelong Learning Directorate
e-mail: deborah.ramsdale@staffordshire.gov.uk
i have been informed that elaine whinstone has suddenly died by andrew jenkinson ! i am wondering why andrew might think i feel bad for highlighting the fact that she did not take seriously my childrens disclosures of abuse and did not even bother to take notes ! She refused to meet me to discuss my concerns which has now prompted ofsted to take action.I do not feel guilty did any of you feel guilty when i was not allowed to visit my dying uncle or indeed attend his funeral.
i have rang ofsted since this inspection and they have assured me they are doing another one unannounced with my concerns as i explained to ofsted you will not accept accountability and have blatent disregard for the law INCLUDING DATA PROTECTION ACT, ILLEGALLY STOPPING CONTACT,NOT WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER AGENCIES AS VICTORIA CLIMBIE INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDS IN MY CASE WOMENS AID !!!!
its been bought to my attention that i cant have my files as you are seeking legal advice as to whether or not you can get an injunction to prevent me having them as you feel i will publicise them ! i wanted my files to make sure they are accurate as you have already breeched the data protection act with inaccuracies in my file!I also wanted them to see if there was anything that could be bought to the judges attention at my final hearing.I suggest that you are deliberately withholding them from me so you are not held accountable for the breeches in data protection act and to prevent me using them as evidence in court! Just to inform you preventing a service user from obtaining their files and breech of data protection act and then seeking to apply for an injunction to prevent that person accessing files is a media story in itsself.
Can you please stop this nonsense and act as the law states you should.
yours faithfully
i am enclosing codes of practice for GSCC andrew did not seem to know who they were ?
I have added after some of the points the way in which these have been breeched although these points were only off the top of my head and i will be going through all my paperwork meticulously.I have already lodged complaints over the phone which have been registered but they have sent me forms to go into further detail and asked me to send all my supporting documents
I thought i would copy and paste them to ensure you and your workers were reminded you are not immune from accountability
regards
I am afraid i will now have to reports Andrew Jenkinson again to the GCSS and yourselves to Ofsted.My solicitor rang me today and told me of your latest excuse to not even allow me an extra hour at least of SUPERVISED contact.Apparently it is becuase Andrew says im too unstable and he thinks im ill with bordeline personality disorder.
WHEN DID ANDREW GET A QUALIFICATION IN PSYCHIATRY ?
I find it highly amusing as yet again these silly deliberate opinions he gives shows once again vexatiousness against me.
I hardly ever see Andrew so i would imagine his chrystal ball opinion is based on emails i have sent or phone calls i have made.
They cant be based on contact as i defy anyone to say that does not go extremely well.
A few facts
1.Dr Pilgrim said that if i was to remain stable the disorder was being reviewed .
2.I have remained stable.
3.I was completely discharged from psychiatric services completely earlier on in the year.
4.I have had no need for psychiatric or psychological involvement at all this year.
5. Even when i was arrested for protesting and seen by a psychiatrist it was seen that there was nothing wrong with me other than fighting for justice for my children.
6. I have even had no reason to visit my GP in 12 months.
7.Fortunately for me I am no longer as isolated as i was and i have people who can verify that rather than being ill I am getting my life back together.
8. If a parent is angry because you cant do your jobs properly,and because you lie in reports,abuse kids within the care system and then make ridiculous allegations deeming the mother to be mentally ill.
Then i think your the one whos mentally ill and as Andrew is about as qualified as I am to give diagnosis’s I believe he has got Little Man Syndrome.
p.s sending an email at 4am does not mean im mentally ill either.
You should all be on stage your so funny ………….sweeping it hahahahah she who laughs last ……….

I refer to your complaint to the Information Commissioner concerning the Social Services Department of Staffordshire County Council.

In my previous email I indicated that I would be approaching the Council with regard to your complaint.  The Council appeared to have breached the sixth data protection principle by failing to properly respond to the subject access request you made in February 2008.  Also, I wished to confirm that you had received all of the information to which you are entitled, and to establish what information has been withheld from you, and what action has been taken in relation to the information which you consider to be inaccurate.

I received a response from the Council shortly after speaking to you yesterday morning.  With regard to your requests for information, I understand that, to date, no information has been provided to you in response to your February 2008 request, or any of the requests you have made subsequently during the course of your contact with the Council.  (I should add that the Council’s records do not show what action took place in 2008.  However, in view of the fact that you continued to make further requests I am assuming that you received no information in response to your request at that time.)

It appears that whilst the files were to be presented to you on 16 June 2009, a last minute decision was taken that legal advice should be obtained before the information could be disclosed.  This was because there were concerns that you may have published the information you received, to the detriment of your children.  The matter was considered further in August 2009 but the same conclusion was reached.  It is not clear whether you were ever informed of this.  However, I understand that an injunction was issued regarding publishing information in relation to one of your children.

By October 2009 the Council was aware that you had moved to Newquay and that you required release through your solicitor (it is not clear whether you informed the Council of this).  However, it appears that whilst the Council is now ready to release the files to you, they do not have your new postal address, or that of your solicitors.

In view of the above I have confirmed my assessment that the Council have breached the sixth data protection principle in this case.  It is clear that the Council had concerns about the release of the information to you.  Nevertheless, you should still have received a response to your original request, and your further requests, within 40 days of each request.  Whilst it would appear that some of your subsequent requests were contained within your formal complaints to the Council, they should have been dealt with as separate matters.

The DPA allows information held by social services departments to be withheld from a response to a subject access request if the provision of the information:-

would be likely to prejudice the carrying out of social work by reason of the fact that serious harm to the physical of mental health or condition of the data subject or any other person would be likely to be caused.”

However, even though it was necessary for legal advice to be obtained in this case, this should have been done within the statutory 40 day timeframe.  Also, if the final decision was that all of the information should be withheld from you, you should have been informed of this within that 40 day timeframe.

Nevertheless, as I have indicated above, the Council are now ready to provide you with the information to which you are entitled if you could provide them with your, or your solicitors’, address.  Please contact the Acting Access to Information Manager with this.  Her address is

If Social Services dont snatch and abuse your kids, The police dont groom them , the hospital will kill you ! Welcome to Staffordshire

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 3:58 am

Not only do we have a corrupt social services department in staffordshire , and paedophile police if thats enough to make you ill we have a hospital that kills people.

If you are planning to visit stay well away !!!

If you have to visit try some of these places of interest

Staffordshire Social Services : Responsible for systematic abuse of children in their care and child trafficking.

Staffordshire Police : Come and get groomed by a police officer … children welcome

Staffordshire Hospital : Warning if you enter here it is unlikely you will come out alive.

Stafford Masonic Hall : Come and mingle with the freemasons

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253438/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-routinely-neglected-patients.html

https://staffordshiresocialservices.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/child-protection-police-officers-exposed/

https://staffordshiresocialservices.wordpress.com/

February 24, 2010

Dedicated to Cafcass ( Crapcass )

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 11:40 am

Dedicated to the Secret Family Courts

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 11:38 am

Dedicated to Staffordshire Local Authority

Dedicated to Parents that have lost their children

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 11:30 am

Dedicated to the Stolen Children

Fight Forced Adoption

ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION!!

My name is IAN JOSEPHS.UK Social services have never hurt me, my family, or my friends, but their wicked abuse of power has simply shocked me into action!”Forced adoption” too often legally deprives healthy,happy,children from all contact with loving parents,brothers,sisters,,grandparents,and other relatives for the rest of their lives! Adoption is a wonderful thing for abandoned and neglected children if it is TRULY VOLUNTARY but is a wicked deed that should be severely punished if forced through the courts against the will and frantic opposition of loving parents. Many will say that I overstate and exaggerate my case  thereby undermining it. I promise you that on the contrary I am understating it as things are now far worse than the public could possibly imagine or accept as credible if I revealed all!Please feel free to use or quote anything you like from my site that you may find useful.

http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduction.asp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/chat/r/t-9805973/index.html

http://www.fassit.co.uk/charles_pragnell_adoption.htm

http://www.infoniac.com/news/forced-adoption-doesnt-give-parents-any-chance.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forced-Adoption-Ian-Josephs/dp/1847997988

http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/2009/11/forced-adoption-and-failures.html

Unborn children on at-risk register
Friday, December 26, 2008, 08:30
2 readers have commented on this story.
Click here to read their views.
LATEST figures show more than 60 babies are being put on “at risk” registers while still in the womb each year in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire.
The authorities had some of the highest numbers of unborn babies at risk of harm or abuse in a table of 36 authorities’ figures from 2002 to 2007. Staffordshire ranked fourth on the list, while Stoke-on-Trent was at number seven.
From 2002/03 to 2007/08, officials in Stoke-on-Trent have put 168 unborn babies on the Child Protection Register.
In the last year, 31 foetuses were added to the register, with three babies being taken into care on the same day they were born.
The number of unborn babies being added to the list has risen from 23 in 2002/03.
Staffordshire County Council registered 34 foetuses as in need of protection in 2006/07 – up on 31 in 2002/03.
During that period the authority labelled 199 unborn babies as at risk.
The county council’s figures for the last year are not yet available.
Under national guidelines, officials are taking action when faced with violent, drug addicted parents and those in unsuitable accommodation.
Stoke-on-Trent councillor Roger Ibbs, portfolio holder for children and young people’s services, said: “We have robust and vigilant child protection procedures in place.
“National indicators for safeguarding show that we are in line or better than our statistical neighbours or the national average.
“We work closely with our partners on safeguarding and have clear and defined lines of communication to ensure all necessary action is taken as swiftly and as appropriately as possible where a child is, or is seen to be, at risk.”
The Sentinel reported earlier this month how, in an annual performance assessment (APA) looking at the work of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, its private partner Serco and other key agencies, Ofsted found big improvements in child protection work. It said the private team brought in to transform children’s services in the Potteries is starting to make “rapid progress”, despite overestimating some achievements.
But Ofsted added that provision was still only “adequate” overall because a few issues, such as the high rate of teenage pregnancies and inconsistent education standards, remain a concern.
It covers the period from April 2007 to March 2008 – the first year since Serco took over the strategic management of education and children’s social care in the city.
Councils must follow guidance in the Government document Working Together to Safeguard Children – part of the Every Child Matters agenda – and involve agencies such as social services, the police, health trust and NSPCC.
A spokesman for Staffordshire County Council said: “Decisions to make unborn children subject to a child protection plan are made in line with the statutory guidance.
“This same guidance is clear that the same procedures and timescales should be followed for unborn children.”
This month, following a review of safeguarding children policy, Ed Balls, secretary of state for children, schools and families, said: “Every Child Matters has led to some major improvements and the Children’s Plan continues this drive, underpinned by a resolve to make this country the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up.
“Where the most vulnerable groups are still at risk, we will continue to strengthen arrangements to protect them. Government will not rest until we have the very best possible arrangements to safeguard our most vulnerable children.”

A HEARTBROKEN Midland mum has claimed social workers have snatched her two year-old away from her because they say she is not clever enough to care for him.

The 28 year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is pleading with social services at Staffordshire County Council for her young son to be allowed to live back home with her and her parents in Tamworth.

The single mother, who is on anti-depressants for post natal depression, claims her only son, who is being currently cared for by foster parents, was taken away from her because social services ruled she was not bonding well enough with him.

The unemployed mother also claims her learning difficulties played a part in the youngster being taken out of her care.

The court case will be heard tomorrow.

She said: “I have learning difficulties, but I don’t think my son should have been taken away from me.

“I am really upset and angry they said we weren’t bonding well enough because we are really close.

“Now I see him twice a week and he keeps asking why he can’t come home.”

She added: “I have tried to explain he’s on holiday with his foster parents, who are really lovely, but he’s only two and he cries because he doesn’t understand. I just want him back home with me.

Upsetting

“My dad is not well with Alzheimer’s, and he’s very close to his grandson, so it’s really stressing him out and upsetting him that he’s not with us too.”

Staffordshire County Council said the future care of her son would be decided in court.

A spokesman for Staffordshire’s Social Care and Health said: “The Adult Social Care and Health team has been working closely with this woman for over two years now. During this time she has been offered several options of support. More recently, we have provided her with advocacy arrangements and a solicitor to represent her interests.

“Alternative arrangements have been made with the local authority to look after her son whilst a court date concerning his future welfare is fixed.”

A spokesman for Staffordshire’s Children and Lifelong Learning Directorate, which deals with all social care matters regarding children, said: “Children and Families Services have been working with this family for some considerable time.

“Specialist assessments have been undertaken and these will inform the future care planning, which will be determined by court processes. A court date has been set for September.”

The devastated mother added: “I’m upset this is going to court. I just hope the court decides he can come to live back home with me.”

http://www.sundaymercury.net/lifestyle-news/family-news/2009/09/06/heartbroken-mum-told-you-are-not-clever-enough-to-look-after-2-year-old-66331-24616019/

Suicide watch would have saved patient

By Paul Jenkins

A REPORT into the death of a woman patient at a Stafford hospital says she could have been saved had staff checked on her overnight.

An internal investigation is being carried out into the death of a 28-year-old Willow Simpson who was found by staff at St George’s Hospital hanging from the window in her room on February 12 this year.

A Cannock inquest into her death heard an independent report which said Miss Simpson should have been on suicide watch after two previous attempts to take her own life.

It also criticised the system of checks on patients at the hospital and the lack of information on individuals given to staff after it found Miss Simpson had been told only seven days earlier that her son was being given up for adoption and she was unlikely to see him again.

The author of the report, independent case worker Julie Lloyd Roberts, said: “Miss Simpson relocated from Wales to Stafford in 2003 when a relationship broke down and she sufferered deteriorating health.

“In April 2006, she was re-admitted to St George’s’ Brocton Ward after an earlier short spell in the hospital.

“After seven months on the ward, she was coming to the end of her period there and the mental health team were looking to place her in supported accommodation.

“She had a meeting with social workers on February 7 to finalise the adoption process for her young son and was told she would have to apply for access to see him and there was nothing she could do to stop the proceedings.

“Staff on the ward didn’t notice her subsequent change of mood and there was no allowance for the possible risk to her health after the outcome of the meeting.

“She should have been on suicide watch after two previous attempts and was completely irrational and very ill at the time of her death.

“Checks were not made on her overnight and I have no doubt she would still be alive if they had been. “I realise the system of checks had been relaxed because of concerns from female patients about privacy and the noise of the doors opening, but their health and wellbeing should have overcome these complaints.”

Stanley Nevin, a health care support worker who was on duty the night before Miss Simpson died, said she had seemed fine and was smiling and chatting in the lounge before going to bed at midnight.

But when he went to wake her up at 7.15am the next morning he found the door locked and had to get his colleague to open it.

They subsequently found her hanging from a window in her bathroom and were unable to revive her.

He admitted he had not checked on her overnight between midnight and 7.15am and was not aware of the meeting she had recently had with her social worker.

But he said there was no fixed system of checks on patients and when it was felt necessary to check on them, it was not every 15 miutes, but more like every hour.

Coroner Andrew Haigh, in recording an open verdict, said it was clear Miss Simpson had killed herself but she was more upset than she appeared after the meeting with social workers and it may have been a cry for help.

He said the health care trust which runs the hospital had been criticised in the report for the haphazard distribution of information and system of checks, and this was being actively investigated.

Amanda Godfrey from South Staffordshire and Shropshire NHS Trust said it took incidents of this kind very seriously.

She said: “Any untoward incident is thoroughly investigated in line with our procedures and the trust endeavours to learn from and improve services as a result of such events.

“As an organisation, we also welcome the opportunity to receive feedback from users of our services, their carers and families and take their views very seriously.”

http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/staffordshirenewsletter-news/displayarticle.asp?id=236686

Extract taken from Staffordshire County Council Child Care Team Public Law Outline Training Document

Detailed Assessment – empowering social workers to regain confidence in their own

assessments, as professionals. Demonstrating that a more fuller, clearly evidenced,

analytical assessment would leave little room for parents to successfully obtain leave

for further assessment reducing the delay in this area.

The

worker completed all assessments and was in a position to rule mother

out as a carer prior to the birth of the baby, on historical information.

Mother was notified of our plan and obtained her own legal advice. The

application for a Care Order was in May 2008. Our forward

planning/assessment/evidence gave her no realistic legal argument to

oppose. The case was timetabled to the earliest final hearing date and

was concluded on the 6th November 2008, within 25 weeks. The court

made a Full Care Order and a Placement Order and it is envisaged

Child A will be placed for adoption with his full sibling.

This innovative and progressive training has prepared the client department for the enormous

changes involved in the way that they manage their caseloads. The programme and

expertise has facilitated understanding of the legislative requirements and how to manage the

extensive information that needs to be sought and collated pre-proceedings with a view to all

matters being concluded within 25 weeks instead of the previous 40 week target. The

evidence of the success and achievement of the training package is demonstrable in every

case now undertaken by ourselves.


Denying a child of breast milk is against its Human Rights

“Per curiam. If the state, in the guise of a local authority, seeks to remove a baby from his parents at a time when its case against the parents has not yet even been established, then the very least the state can do is to make generous arrangements for contact, those arrangements being driven by the needs of the family and not stunted by lack of resources. Typically, if this is what the parents want, one will be looking to contact most days of the week and for lengthy periods. Local authorities also had to be sensitive to the wishes of a mother who wants to breast-feed, and should make suitable arrangements to enable her to do so, and not merely to bottle-feed expressed breast milk. Nothing less would meet the imperative demands of the European Convention on Human Rights.”…
In the matter of unborn baby M; R (on the application of X and another) v Gloucestershire County Council. Citation: BLD 160403280; [2003] EWHC 850 (Admin). Hearing Date: 15 April 2003 Court: Administrative Court. Judge: Munby J. Abstract. Published Date 16/04/2003

Child Protection Police Officers Exposed

Filed under: Secret family courts,Staffordshire — nojusticeforparents @ 8:32 am
Tags: , , ,

Ex-abuse detective groomed girl
Andrew Rowe had worked as a police officer for 12 years
A former detective constable specialising in child abuse cases has admitted grooming a 15-year-old girl.
Andrew Rowe, 31, formerly of Ashwood, Stoke-on-Trent, pleaded guilty at Birmingham Crown Court to five charges under the Sexual Offences Act.
Staffordshire Police said Rowe, who was arrested in April, had sent the girl hundreds of messages on a social networking site.
He was remanded in custody and will be sentenced at a later date.
The girl’s family released a statement through the force saying Rowe had “completely abused” the trust people had in him.
It is hard to imagine a more shocking abuse of position by an officer
Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale
Staffordshire Police said after being arrested, Rowe was suspended from duty and then resigned from the force after his first court appearance.
Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale said Rowe, who had worked as an officer for 12 years, had “betrayed” his victim and her parents.
He added: “It is hard to imagine a more shocking abuse of position by an officer.
“There is also evidence to suggest that he tried to cover his tracks and hamper our inquiries by deliberately deleting phone and computer evidence.”
The family’s statement said: “As an officer within the child abuse investigation unit, we regarded Andrew Rowe with the highest level of trust possible – a trust which he went on to completely abuse.
“The hardest thing at the beginning was the prospect of reporting a police officer to the police, wondering what level of support, if any, we would receive.
“We would now urge anybody who finds themselves in a similar situation to report the matter immediately, as we have received the highest level of help and support possible.”

Child protection officer exposed as paedophile is still on police payroll

Sean O’Neill and Russell Jenkins

A police force is continuing to pay a former child protection officer’s £35,000 salary despite his conviction for serious paedophile offences, The Times has learnt.

DC Peter Cooper, 58, was found guilty last month of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy but remains suspended on full pay pending a police disciplinary tribunal.

West Midlands Police will not reveal when its misconduct panel will meet to hear the case, which is expected to result in the officer’s dismissal from the force. It may not take place until after Cooper has been sentenced at Stafford Crown Court this month.

Judge Simon Tonking has already warned the policeman that he could face a significant custodial sentence.

Cooper has been a West Midlands officer for 32 years and was assigned to the Family Protection Unit, investigating child abuse cases, between 2002 and 2005. He was attached to the unit when the allegations against him were made in 2005.

But a spokesman for the force said that it did not plan to review cases in which Cooper had been involved during that period, nor to alert families with which he may have had contact.

The offences of which the officer has been convicted relate to his position as a senior instructor in an Army Cadet Corps in the Midlands between 1983 and 1986. They surfaced two years ago when a former cadet who had been abused by Cooper in the 1980s came face-to-face with him again. Two other former cadets also gave evidence against Cooper at his trial last month.

The three spoke of a culture of sexual abuse in the cadet corps involving a number of volunteer instructors, who held officer rank. The principal witness said: “The cadets had been brainwashed into thinking it [indecent assault] was normal.”

The witness, now in his thirties, told the court that he had gone to the police with the allegations because he reached a point in his life where he could no longer keep it buried. He said: “When sexual abuse happens your trust is shattered and you worry whether people will believe you.”

The jury found Cooper guilty of buggery and indecent assault against the main witness. But it acquitted him of five counts involving the other complainants. Investigators believe, however, that there may have been an organised paedophile ring at work within the cadet corps and that there are more abuse victims who have not yet come forward.

Cooper was a soldier in the Royal Corps of Signals, serving in Northern Ireland among other places, before leaving in 1973 and joining West Midlands Police. He volunteered as a cadet instructor, rising to the rank of major. In 1987 Cooper married and, four years later, left the cadet corps to spend more time with his family.

During Cooper’s police career he spent periods as a firearms officer and in the regional crime squad before joining the Family Protection Unit. Police colleagues who appeared as character witnesses described him as a man who rarely became flustered and said that he was regarded as one of the best in the unit at interviewing suspects.

Cooper denied the charges and his lawyers asserted at his trial that the complainants had colluded to make make false allegations.

Rachel Brand, for the prosecution, told the jury during the trial in July that Cooper was quietly-spoken with a diffident manner but the kind of man that others looked up to. She said that one witness referred to him as a “James Bond figure”.

But she said neither the passage of time nor his service in the West Midlands force absolved Cooper of responsibility for a “gross breach of trust”. She said: “The damage done to these impressionable young men is far-reaching. It causes an emotional turmoil that lasts for many years.”

Miss Brand added that Cooper was “plausible” and “intelligent” but had lied when he denied the allegations. She said: “Throughout the intervening years he must have thought he had got away with it but the truth, we submit, is out at last.”

The force said that it would stop paying Cooper’s salary when he received a custodial sentence. It felt that it was unnecessary to review his work as a child protection officer because he spent most of his time interviewing suspects and would not have been alone with vulnerable children.

A spokesman said: “When complaints are made against officers we carry out robust, thorough and proportionate investigations to ensure the integrity of the organisation. This investigation has been conducted in that manner resulting in the conviction of Peter Cooper and we are clearly disappointed that this officer has failed to uphold the high standards of West Midlands Police.”

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said that all army cadet instructors recruited now were subjected to strict vetting and checks by the Criminal Records Bureau.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2224849.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/8242381.stm

Pindown Staffordshire

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 8:22 am

Jury told of beatings at children’s home
By Sentinel Reporter
A 33-year-old labourer from Stoke-on-Trent told a jury how he was beaten and humiliated by a deputy head officer at a county children’s home.
Darren Underhill was aged 15 when he claims he was subjected to a series of assaults by Thomas Watson at Riverside Community Home School in Rocester.
He told the jury at Stafford Crown Court one of the beatings took place after he ran away from the social services home.
Mr Underhill said: “He said ‘you are going to have it when you get back’. I was thrown in a cell and there were four members of staff there. I got hit first and went down.
“I curled up in a ball and the next thing I knew I was kicked and punched. It might have lasted for a minute or two. I was screaming.”
He said he was taken to a medical room and received four stitches to a shin wound.
Stafford Crown Court heard Watson, aged 57, assaulted Mr Underhill after he refused to eat.
“I was sitting at a table and I had the food in front of me but I did not want to eat it,” Mr Underhill said.
“He pushed the table against me and smashed the plate over my head. I could not breathe. When he let the table go he hit me. I got slaps and punches.”
Mr Underhill also described Watson jumping off a table to cane him with extra force and being given a pair of silky shorts to wear.
“You took off your trousers and pants and put the shorts on to be caned,” he said.
Mr Underhill described Watson as a Jekyll and Hyde character.
“Sometimes you got a beating and sometimes you could have a fag off him,” he said.
Unemployed fairground worker, John Henry Bentley, aged 31, from Stafford was sent to the Riverside home, which is now closed, after playing truant.
He described how he had to count out the number of strokes he received from the cane.
“I had to touch my toes with my underpants on. You had to count them out and if you missed them you would get hit again,” he said.
He added: “Slaps and punches were a part of every day life there.”
Designated members of staff were allowed to give corporal punishment to children at homes in the 1980s but it had to be within strict guidelines. Caning was to be limited to six strokes.
Watson, of Meadow View, Burntwood, denies eight counts of causing cruelty to a child and five counts of causing actual bodily harm to boys in his care between 1979 and 1985.
The trial continues.
Evening Sentinel, Stoke-on-Trent, 6 March 2002
Children ‘beaten with plimsoll’
The former deputy head officer at a care home used a black pump – which he called Boris – to beat children on their bare backsides, a court heard.
Jason Walters, aged 30, of Stoke-on-Trent, said he was hit with the plimsoll at Riverside Community Home School, Rocester, by Thomas Watson.
Mr Walters described how he had been taken into care, aged 10, and had spent around 12 months in the observation and assessment unit which was run by Watson.
He said: “I came into contact with Mr Watson every time I ran off.
“I ran off because I did not want to be there because I was getting assaulted. Mr Watson was slippering me.
“Mr Watson said ‘I’ll stop you from running off, you can meet Boris’.”
Mr Walters added: “I said ‘who is Boris?’ and he got a black plimsoll out. He asked me to bend over.”
He told Stafford Crown Court he received six of the best from Watson.
“The plimsoll was to the bare bottom. As it was happening he said ‘are you going to run off again?’. I was screaming,” said Mr Walters.
Riverside was a Staffordshire County Council run home which housed children taken into the care of social services.
Designated members of staff were allowed to give corporal punishment to children at homes in the 1980’s but it had to be within strict guidelines. Caning was to be limited to six strokes.
Watson, of Meadow View, Burntwood, denies eight counts of causing cruelty to a child and five counts of causing actual bodily harm to boys in his care between 1979 and 1985. The trial continues.
Birmingham Post, 12 March 2002
Care worker denies cruelty
By Staff Reporter
A care worker accused of cruelty when he caned boys at Staffordshire children’s homes yesterday denied that he also used plimsolls with pet names of Boris and Percy to punish them.
Thomas Watson, (57), worked at Chadswell home, Lichfield, and Riverside home, Rocester near Uttoxeter, between January 1979 and January 1985.
Julia Macur QC, prosecuting, said Watson was the ‘designated care worker’ for the purpose of administering corporal punishment at the two Staffordshire County Council homes and was allowed to beat boys with a cane.
Watson, of Meadow View, Burntwood, Staffordshire, denies eight charges of child cruelty and five of assault on nine complainants.
He told Stafford Crown Court that when he caned the youngsters “I was not very keen on the idea. It was undignified.”
He said he inspected boys’ buttocks “to see that it had not caused damage. If they were hit too hard it could draw blood but I never saw cutting of the skin in any way.”
Watson told Christopher Millington QC, defending, that he did not physically assault one youth or punch him in the stomach or slap his face.
He said on one occasion when he was alleged to have caned another boy at Riverside he was at Lichfield at the time.
He said he never caned a boy without another member of staff being present because of regulations. He described as “rubbish” a claim by one youth that he administered seven strokes of a cane.
Mr Millington said: “Three youths complained you struck them with a plimsoll or pump.”
Watson replied: “No.”
Mr Millington continued: “And that you used Boris and Percy as pet names for the pumps or plimsolls.”
Watson replied: “I had no reason to use them if the cane was available.”
Evening Sentinel, Stoke-on-Trent, 19 March 2002
Editorial
Man Who Thought He Was Above The Law Of The Land
Youngsters sent to Riverside Community Care Home were certainly ‘no angels’.
These schoolchildren had been taken into the care of Staffordshire Social Services because they had started a life of crime or because they were out of control in their own homes.
They would have rightly expected to face a regime of strict discipline at the Rocester care home they were sent to live in. They would have expected to face corporal punishment if they stepped out of line too often. It was the 1980s and up to six strokes of the cane were permitted by law. But the boys, removed from the security of the family home, would not have dreamt they could be subjected to violent physical assaults by the man who was responsible for their care – Thomas Watson.
Watson was the head of the observation and assessment unit at the home which closed at the end of the 1980s and he spent two years as the deputy head. A large man, he used physical threats and violence to keep youngsters under his control in check.
Some boys would run away. Riverside was in the middle of the Staffordshire countryside and the youngsters did not know where they were going. But they still ran.
The 1980s was a different era to today. Designated members of staff were allowed to administer corporal punishment but it had to be within strict guidelines. Watson however, thought he was above the law. He was wrong.
Evening Sentinel, Stoke-on-Trent, 20 March 2002
Victims Urged To Talk To Abuse Detectives
By Dave Jones
Victims of abuse at children’s homes in Staffordshire were today urged to come forward.
An investigation into claims of sexual and physical abuse at children’s homes across the county has been on going since 1999.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Dunning of Staffordshire Police is now appealing for anyone who has information on any incidents to come forward.
He said the vast majority of the alleged offences were committed against children who attended the former Riverside Community Home School, Rocester, during the 1980s.
The move comes after Thomas Watson, a 57-year-old former deputy headmaster of the school, was given a nine-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months yesterday. He was found guilty of two counts of committing cruelty to a child.
Mr Dunning, who is leading the investigation, said: “Staffordshire Police is committed to investigating historic allegations of abuse occurring within Staffordshire.
“The conviction of Thomas Watson serves to reinforce that commitment and determination to bring the perpetrators to justice.”
Staffordshire Police started the investigation into allegations of historic physical and sexual abuse at children’s homes throughout Staffordshire in June 1999.
Thomas Watson, of Meadow View, Burntwood worked at Riverside Community Home School, Rocester from 1979 to 1988. He became the deputy headmaster in 1986.
Watson was found guilty of two counts of committing cruelty to a child in 1983 and was cleared of 11 other counts of causing actual bodily harm and cruelty to children.
Watson, had denied assaulting Darren Underhill, now a 33-year-old labourer in Stoke-on-Trent.
Mr Underhill, who was 15-years-old when he was sent to Riverside, had described a series of attacks to a jury at Stafford Crown Court.
He said Watson had launched a viscous attack on him one evening after he refused to eat his dinner, smashing a plate over his head and ramming a table into his stomach.
Sentencing Judge John Shand said the fact Watson had been convicted on two separate counts meant he could not treat his actions as a “lapse”.
He said: “There was no reason for you to act as you did. You were in breach of your trust.”
In sentencing he said he took into account Watson’s previous good character, his age and the fact the offences related back to the 1980’s.
The 17-strong police investigation team looking into allegations of abuse at children’s homes is being run from an incident room at Stafford.
Anyone who has information they wish to discuss can talk to member of the inquiry team in the strictest of confidence on 01785 218660.

785 218660.

Care worker assaulted two boys

A 66-year-old man has admitted assaulting two boys in his care at Staffordshire children’s homes.

David Michael Kendrick, from Lichfield, pleaded guilty at Staffordshire Crown Court on Wednesday to causing actual bodily harm to two children during the 1980s.

The assaults happened when Kendrick was working as a residential child care officer in Stafford and at the former Riverside Children’s Home in Rocester, near Uttoxeter.

His offences came to light during an investigation into several allegations of abuse at children’s homes in the county, some of them stretching back decades.

Kendrick’s is the seventh conviction that has come about since the inquiry into claims of physical and sexual abuse began.

The case was adjourned for pre-sentence reports until 12 December.

A Staffordshire woman has received £60,000 for psychological damage suffered as a child in a care home.

Brenda Moult, from Newcastle-under-Lyme, said she was abused 20 years ago at Longdon Hall School, Staffordshire.

The payment was agreed in a out-of-court settlement with half the money being paid by Staffordshire County Council insurers and the other half by the school’s insurers.

Staffordshire County Council and Honormead Ltd, the company employed to look after her, have not admitted liability.

Convicted paedophile

Mrs Moult said £60,000 is not sufficient compensation for what she suffered.

She told the BBC’s Midlands Today programme: “I wanted justice and I have not been given justice.

Mrs Moult says that justice has not been done

“I haven’t been given the opportunity to stand in a court and say what I feel and try to get justice properly.”

Mrs Moult was just 13 when she was placed at Longdon Hall School – she says she was indecently assaulted by the then head of care, Richard Owen.

He was already a convicted paedophile.

She also said she was later sadistically abused again by a Staffordshire County Council worker.

This has never been proved and no one has supported her evidence.

To compile the case, lawyers had to trawl through 3,000 documents including reports, complaints and protests made by Mrs Moult.

She said: “They knew what happened.

“They knew, but didn’t care.”

A director of private company Honormead Ltd said employing a convicted paedophile would not happen today.

“We have to take every precaution.

“We do so now because we have a legal right to do so. At that time, we did not.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1715227.stm

Child Snatching examples

YouTube row over social services baby threat
Ben Leapman, Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 12:01AM BST 19 Aug 2007
A heavily pregnant woman is at the centre of an extraordinary legal battle with social workers after she secretly recorded them threatening to take away her newborn baby.
YouTube audio: The secret recording
Vanessa Brookes, 34, who is due to give birth early next month, smuggled taping equipment into a meeting with social services officials, fearing they would try to take her baby for forced adoption.
She recorded a social worker telling her and her husband Martin, 41, that even though there was “no immediate risk to your child from yourselves”, the council would seek a court order to place the child in foster care.
Mother and baby would be allowed “two or three days” in hospital together, but should not leave the premises until social workers came to remove the infant. In a desperate attempt to keep their baby, the couple have published the recorded conversation on the internet.
Calderdale council, in West Yorkshire, last night accused them of breaching the Data Protection Act by recording its staff without their knowledge or consent. The council said it had begun legal action to have the recording removed from the YouTube website. Mrs Brookes said: “Even puppies and kittens aren’t removed from their mothers at birth. Social workers always record everything, so why shouldn’t we record them?”
John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of campaign group Justice for Families, said: “I find it very odd that a newborn baby would be removed when there is not any allegation by the authorities that the child is at risk. Yet this case is not unique. There are many cases in which newborns are removed because of allegations that their mothers may at some later stage ’emotionally abuse’ the child.”
The case returns the spotlight to claims that social services are being heavy-handed in removing children from their parents, in order to meet Government adoption targets.
The Sunday Telegraph has previously revealed cases of mothers who were not told why their children were taken away, and cases of families whose children were not returned even after the parents had been cleared of wrongdoing. More than 2,000 babies aged under a year were taken for adoption last year, almost triple the level of a decade ago.
Social services took an interest in the Brookes family after Mrs Brookes, who is partially-sighted, was diagnosed with depression and a personality disorder, leading to concerns that her baby might be subjected to “emotional abuse”. Neighbours have complained that the couple’s household was disorderly, but neither has been accused of abusing or harming a child.
In the recorded meeting, the social worker tells the couple: “It’s our intention as a local authority that when your baby is born, we go into court on that same day and ask for an interim court order because we would wish to place your baby with foster carers.”
He tells Mrs Brookes: “I would like you and your baby to stay in hospital until the courts have made a decision.”
The social worker says the two or three days the mother has with her baby in hospital will allow her to begin breast-feeding and that once the infant is taken away, social services will pick up expressed breast milk from her home and deliver it to the foster carers for bottle-feeding.
The social worker admits to the couple that a back-up plan is being drawn up in case the judge refuses the application for a care order. He says: “What we also have to think about is a child protection plan that looks at you, at home, with your baby. There is no immediate risk to your child from yourselves, that’s my understanding from reading documents.”
A spokesman for Calderdale council said officials would seek a meeting with Mr and Mrs Brookes “to understand how this information came into the public domain. We are taking action to have this item removed from YouTube. This recording was made without the knowledge or consent of our member of staff.
“The council does not take lightly any recommendation to the court for a child or a baby to be brought into care. The decision whether or not to institute care proceedings is made by social workers who have to consider the best interests of the child.”

YouTube row over social services baby threat Ben Leapman, Home Affairs CorrespondentPublished: 12:01AM BST 19 Aug 2007A heavily pregnant woman is at the centre of an extraordinary legal battle with social workers after she secretly recorded them threatening to take away her newborn baby.YouTube audio: The secret recordingVanessa Brookes, 34, who is due to give birth early next month, smuggled taping equipment into a meeting with social services officials, fearing they would try to take her baby for forced adoption.
She recorded a social worker telling her and her husband Martin, 41, that even though there was “no immediate risk to your child from yourselves”, the council would seek a court order to place the child in foster care.Mother and baby would be allowed “two or three days” in hospital together, but should not leave the premises until social workers came to remove the infant. In a desperate attempt to keep their baby, the couple have published the recorded conversation on the internet.Calderdale council, in West Yorkshire, last night accused them of breaching the Data Protection Act by recording its staff without their knowledge or consent. The council said it had begun legal action to have the recording removed from the YouTube website. Mrs Brookes said: “Even puppies and kittens aren’t removed from their mothers at birth. Social workers always record everything, so why shouldn’t we record them?”John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of campaign group Justice for Families, said: “I find it very odd that a newborn baby would be removed when there is not any allegation by the authorities that the child is at risk. Yet this case is not unique. There are many cases in which newborns are removed because of allegations that their mothers may at some later stage ’emotionally abuse’ the child.”The case returns the spotlight to claims that social services are being heavy-handed in removing children from their parents, in order to meet Government adoption targets.The Sunday Telegraph has previously revealed cases of mothers who were not told why their children were taken away, and cases of families whose children were not returned even after the parents had been cleared of wrongdoing. More than 2,000 babies aged under a year were taken for adoption last year, almost triple the level of a decade ago.Social services took an interest in the Brookes family after Mrs Brookes, who is partially-sighted, was diagnosed with depression and a personality disorder, leading to concerns that her baby might be subjected to “emotional abuse”. Neighbours have complained that the couple’s household was disorderly, but neither has been accused of abusing or harming a child.In the recorded meeting, the social worker tells the couple: “It’s our intention as a local authority that when your baby is born, we go into court on that same day and ask for an interim court order because we would wish to place your baby with foster carers.”He tells Mrs Brookes: “I would like you and your baby to stay in hospital until the courts have made a decision.”The social worker says the two or three days the mother has with her baby in hospital will allow her to begin breast-feeding and that once the infant is taken away, social services will pick up expressed breast milk from her home and deliver it to the foster carers for bottle-feeding.The social worker admits to the couple that a back-up plan is being drawn up in case the judge refuses the application for a care order. He says: “What we also have to think about is a child protection plan that looks at you, at home, with your baby. There is no immediate risk to your child from yourselves, that’s my understanding from reading documents.”A spokesman for Calderdale council said officials would seek a meeting with Mr and Mrs Brookes “to understand how this information came into the public domain. We are taking action to have this item removed from YouTube. This recording was made without the knowledge or consent of our member of staff.”The council does not take lightly any recommendation to the court for a child or a baby to be brought into care. The decision whether or not to institute care proceedings is made by social workers who have to consider the best interests of the child.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560701/YouTube-row-over-social-services-baby-threat.html

AND SUPRISE SUPRISE THE VIDEO WAS REMOVED FROM YOUTUBE

Social Worker Humour ( please feel free to submit your humour via comments section below )

A woman stood and watched a social worker being beaten by ten people, after a policeman broke them apart he said to the woman, “why didnt you try to help”? to which she replied “i thought ten was enough”

Q. How many social workers does it take to change a light bulb???

A. 13 (1 to change the bulb & another 12 to hold a meeting to discuss how best to change it).

How do you know when there has been a case conference at your local social services office?

Because there is always a smell of bullsh*t in the air.

What is the difference between a social worker and a fly?

Nothing – they both spread crap from place to place.

whats the difference between a social worker and a rotweiler?

its easier to get your kids back off a rotweiler

What is the difference between God and a social worker?
God doesn’t pretend to be a social worker.

Real Cause Of Swine Flu discovered
scientists have made a breathtaking discovery and found that swine flu was actually spread by social workers.The amazing disovering was found after thousands of parents and children complained that they were pig sick of social services.Scientists found a link that social workers were spreading the virus orally by spraying verbal diarrorha.
Dr psychbabble said ” This is a groundbreaking discovery that may save the bacon of thousands of children and families.” He called for the immediate vaccination of every social worker in the land which would have to be injected in their eyeballs.Those that refuse to have vaccine face having compulsory tongue amputations and mouths stitched up to prevent it passing to nspcc workers, barnados,cafcass,and judges although early signs show it may already be to late.
A spokesman for the national swine flu helpline revealed they have already been innundated with calls from cafcass officers that think they have caught it from telling ” porkies “.
We tried to get several people to comment but they all said they were prevented from doing so after being gagged under family law.
This is yet another blow to social services.!
Baroness Dulleth Mingin spokesperson for the Dcsf said ” atchoo oink sniff “

Disclaimer and information for professionals that are:

Risk averse, mentally challenged, mentally disturbed, emotionally damaged.

The content of the thread is for entertainment purposes only & the content of postings are meant as jokes, if any of the above paragraph describes you or a condition that you are suffering from then this thread may be highly inappropriate for you.

Reading this thread whilst suffering from any of the above may cause severe life long emotional damage, even contemplating reading this thread may cause significant harm to your well being or self image or self worth.

However if you happen to be contemplating reading thread or will in fact read the postings contained within this thread and you are a typical child snatching robot nazi, “snatch kids first ask questions later” or you are “always right” & lack a conscience or any moral compass you will probably be indifferent to the thread or at most be angry that others are making jokes about you a “professional”.

Please remember we are not responsible for your mental state prior to or after reading this thread.

New Medicine Available For Social Workers

THE INJUSTICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ( great site check it out )

THE INJUSTICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM

undefined

How you deal with Social Workers, Court, Police, Prison, the NSPCC and Probation, is within these pages. Updated, as new laws and even more bureaucracy threaten to overwhelm us

Family advice and information to help with the hypocrisy of the Social Services, NSPCC and Police, who only see that which is beneficial to them. Most families just need help and space to recover, the Social Services, NSPCC and CAFCASS believe the cheapest solution, is to separate them.

The true cost of the overzealous Social Services, the inept and greedy NSPCC and the star chamber family court system needs to be investicated urgently, if the Professionals were sacked or faced prison when they lied, instead of being moved, or retrained when found out, justice would be done. It is left to a Family Court Judge, with the collusion of CAFCASS and Social Services to decide the fate of a family, unfettered by any outside judgement, or publicity, this is far from justice. The police, probation and prison services ensure this injustice is complete. Collateral damage, in order to protect children is seen as a means to an end, tell that to the families left in ruins.

http://www.legalsurvival.co.uk/

Social Workers are the problem not the solution

Social Workers “Wannabe Professionals”

Fighting Child-Stealing by the State

Conference : Lawful Rebellion – Fighting Child Stealing by the State

Duration : All Day

Date : 10th april 2010

Location: Stafford Rangers Football Club, Stafford , West Midlands

Speakers: Brian Gerrish ,Key activists and parents, including oversea’s speakers.

Anticipated support – MPs, local councillors, Police, Social Services, Charities and Quango’s:    None

Background: We now know that thousands of children are being taken from parents by the State using lies, false accusation, false evidence, perjury, intimidation, harassment and secret courts.

Those involved include some MPs, Judges, Police, NHS ( including Doctors, Psychiatrists and Paediatricians) Social Services and Charities.

We recognise that most people are good but that does not allow callous criminal activity to be covered up.

We understand that child-stealing is perpetrated by the State to break up families and leave the children to be claimed for nefarious purposes. The act of stealing is a template which is replicated across UK and in Countries overseas.

Further Details and Contact:

Watch http://www.ukcolumn.org, http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk, http://www.lawfulrebellion.org.uk

February 23, 2010

Please take time to sign these Petitions

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 12:49 am

Please support this petition. If a social worker dislikes you they can just say you’re kids are being emotionally abused. Please give a few seconds of your time and of course your autograph to go towards getting this pathetic psychobabble removed for once and for all.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/courtabuse/

Child protection social workers are known as child snatcher for this image to change we need reform:

1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain. 2:-Abolish “emotional harm” and “risk” as justifications for putting children into care 3:-Abolish “forced adoption”if a parent opposes an adoption in court 4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts. 6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid 7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without “speculation.” 8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning has been served and the situation has not been remedied.

These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ReformIt/

Ask yourself a question, then answer: Why is the Family Court so secretive? It is clearly not designed to protect the identities of the children as entire communities are made fully aware, by child protection officers, school principals, teachers, even through themselves putting two and two together, of what is occurring before, during and after the “case” is heard. Who is Section 97 Paragraph 2 of the Children Act 1989 C.41 /actually/ protecting, if not the chidren? This section of the Act claims to protect the identities of children by banning the publication of any materials that may identify the children themselves (a moot point since the children are already known), solicitors, judges, barristers, social workers, psychologists, police (or rather more accurately, corporate enforcement) officers, to name but a few; people who do not want to be identified with Britain’s largest and most well-protected, secretive and insidious child trafficking ring. These regulations, which include the erroneously perceived ability to make crystal ball predictions about a child’s future, prevent oversight and allow criminal activities to go unpunished.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/childrenact/

I petition the Prime Minister to elect a CPS Ombudsman in alignment with other Government Departments. I for one of many, have been failed by the CPS. Even with police recommendations,after a 20 month long thorough and precise investigation, which cited a prosecution against two social workers for Perjury and Perverting the course of Justice. Because of these people` actions I lost my 10 week old baby for 6 months and my 6 yr old child forever. Here in N Ireland we have a Police Ombudsman, which generates great “Public confidence”. A CPS Ombudsman, I`m sure, would also be beneficial, not alone for the public but also for the police in general.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CPSOmbudsman/

Social Services and Cafcass come into our homes to gather evidence about our children and our family situation and infact it is more intrusive than a formal police interview. If the police came to interview us formally we would be removed from the property and taken to the local police station where my interview would be recorded and I could have a solicitor present. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to reform the law and implement the following changes. All parents being interviewed by Social Services or Cafcass should have the right to have a Legal Advisor present, and every interview should be recorded for the same reason’s as a police interview, because this forms a record of evidence.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/TapeEvidence/

Family Law is decided upon by a judge hearing evidence from parties contained within that family unit, also Guardians, CAFCASS, Social Services and reporting experts.

This petition is to carry out family law in the same way criminal cases are heard. Evidence would be submitted with a jury deciding the outcome at a final hearing. This stops the people involved with the case being directly involved with any decision making. After hearing the result of the jury the judge could then set out the restrictions and orders with regards to the jury’s decision.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/JurysFamilyLaw/

February 21, 2010

Adapted from a poem by Stan Gebhardt ( a child in care alienated from parents by social services with tragic results ))

I LOOKED FOR YOU THE OTHER DAY

I HOPED YOU’D SEE ME BUT YOU DIDN’T

I SAID ” I LOVE YOU ” AND WAITED FOR WHAT YOU WOULD SAY

I THOUGHT YOU’D HEAR ME BUT YOU DIDNT

I WANTED YOU TO COME AND PLAY WITH ME

I THOUGHT YOUD FOLLOW ME BUT YOU DIDNT

I DREW A PICTURE JUST FOR YOU TO SEE

I THOUGHT YOUD GET IT BUT YOU DIDNT

I MADE A FORT FOR US BACK IN THE WOODS

I THOUGHT YOUD CAMP WITH ME BUT YOU DIDNT

I FOUND SOME WORMD N STUFF FOR FISHING IF WE COULD

I THOUGHT YOUD COME WITH ME BUT YOU DIDNT

I NEEDED YOU TO TALK TO , MY THOUGHTS TO SHARE

I THOUGHT YOUD WANT TO BUT YOU DIDNT

I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE GAME HOPING YOU WOULD BE THERE

I THOUGHT YOUD SURELY COME BUT YOU DIDNT

I ASKED YOU TO SHARE MY YOUTH WITH ME

I THOUGHT YOUD WANT TO BUT YOU COULDNT

SOCIAL SERVICES HAD TAKEN ME INTO CARE

YOU WANTED ME TO COME HOME SAFELY

BUT I DIDNT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CHILD ABUSE BY THE STATE

19-21 February 2010

By post and by Electronic Mail

copy being forwarded to:

Jane Todd: jane.todd@nottinghamcity.gov.uk
Chief Executive
The Guildhall
Burton Street
Nottingham
NG1 4BT

Alan Simpson, MP: simpsona@parliament.uk
Vernon House
18 Friar Lane
Nottingham
NG1 6DQ

Conduct Group: conduct@gscc.org.uk
General Social Care Council
Myson House
Railway Terrace
Rugby
CV21 3HT

Fitness to Practise
General Medical Council
St James’s Buildings
79 Oxford Street
Manchester M1 6FQ

Julia Hodson, Chief Constable
Nottinghamshire Police
Sherwood Lodge
Arnold
Nottingham
NG5 8PP

Development Producer
Chameleon Television
Church House
14 Town Street
Horsforth
Leeds
LS18 4RJ

Newsdesk: BBC East Midlands Today
BBC East Midlands
London Road
Nottingham
NG2 4UU

ITN: editor@itn.co.uk
200 Gray’s Inn Rd
London
WC1X 8XZ

Channel 4: viewerenquiries@channel4.co.uk
124 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 2TX

Central Tonight:
Central Independent Television Ltd
Central Court
Gas Street
Birmingham
B1 2JT

Metro Newsdesk: news.london@ukmetro.co.uk
Associated Newspapers Limited
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London W8 5TT

Amnesty International UK
The Human Rights Action Centre
17-25 New Inn Yard
London
EC2A 3EA

The UK Column: editor@ukcolumn.org
UK Column
County House
12/13 Sussex Street
Plymouth
PL1 2HR

Daily Star Newsdesk: news@dailystar.co.uk
The Daily Star
The Northern & Shell Building
Number 10 Lower Thames Street
London
EC3R 6EN

Daily Mail Newsdesk: editor.it@dailymail.co.uk
Associated Newspapers Limited
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London W8 5TT

The Times Newsdesk: home.news@thetimes.co.uk newsdesk@sundaytimes.co.ukcamilla.cavendish@thetimes.co.uk
Times House
1 Pennington Street
London
E98 1TT

The Guardian Newsdesk: national@guardian.co.uk commentisfree@guardian.co.uk
Kings Place
90 York Way
London
N1 9GU

The Observer Newsdesk: news@observer.co.uk
Kings Place
90 York Way
London
N1 9GU

Nottingham Evening Post Newsdesk: newsdesk@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk martin.done@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk
Nottingham Post Media Group
Castle Wharf House
Nottingham
NG1 7EU

The Sun Newsdesk: letters@the-sun.co.uk talkback@the-sun.co.uk
Newsdesk
The Sun
1 Virginia St
London
E98 1SL

Newsdesk: investigate@mirror.co.uk
The Mirror
1 Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5AP

Newsdesk: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
The Telegraph
1 Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5AP

Bob Geldof, KBE: geldof@msn.com
Amanda Hon
c/o Jukes Productions Ltd.
P.O. Box 13995
London W9 2FL
UK

To whom it may concern,

It is with deep concern that I write this letter on behalf of my children who are at this very minute being physically and mentally abused whilst in the care of the State. We are VERY worried about their safety and wellbeing. I shall justify this using several points.

They are arranged in no particular chronological order, I will write this as it comes to me.

– Today, I found out that after nearly seven years on medication to control severe ADHD, the eldest child is already showing signs of uncontrolled aggression towards his two younger brothers after being taken off the drug (Ritalin) since last week. He is suddenly showing an interest in boxing and eager to demonstrate his square circle prowess after only a couple weeks, has landed himself a school detention for “punching a wall”! Like the wall would suffer any; I’ve hit walls and only ended up with several broken bones in my fingers. We actually had him sitting down for five minutes during our supervised contact this afternoon in Larkdale Children’s Prison in Nottingham, and his legs were twitching like any “normal” person on quality amphetamines. This is NOT normal behaviour for Nathanael. Neither is him waving a dinner knife around in front of his brother’s face like it was a sword. He has been taught BETTER THAN THAT. He was put on Ritalin in the first place to control his destructive and disruptive behaviour at HIS OWN REQUEST. The boy KNEW at SIX YEARS OLD he had problems with his behaviour and needed serious help controlling it. Today his eyes were fixed and dilated and he showed signs of extreme mental agitation. He was barely in control.

– Also while at the Contact Centre – I mean, prison – we were half-introduced to a new (to me) member of staff calling herself “Cheryl”. This individual came across as tyrannically authoritarian with an air of “I know it all, you know nothing, you have no opinion until I give it to you”. Immediately on our arrival it disconcerted me to hear her ORDERING my children around like they were her own! Examples: Benjamin turned on the TV. The video wasn’t even playing. Cheryl: “Turn that down now!”. The TV is silent while there’s nothing playing on screen. I gave the boys cereal bars, Cheryl: “Sit at the table!”. It was not a request, it came across as an “Or else…!”. That woman concerns me, I do NOT want her anywhere near my children, she is DANGEROUS. Nathanael sat on the rocking horse in the common area: she attempted to forcibly remove him from it, nearly pulling the thing down on top of him! She did the same to Benjamin, AND to Jamie (ostensibly to keep Nathanael off it, saying he was too big for it, and to allow Jamie and Benjamin equal time on it. I asked her why, in a place that was supposed to be so safe, the hobby horse wasn’t bolted to the floor. She came back with this thought-ending cliché: “You were supposed to be watching him”! I asked her what I was supposed to do, centre rules stated that even if the children were tearing strips out of each other we were not allowed to physically intervene, that only the centre staff were allowed to do that – that and the fact that *she* was standing at the side of the horse and I was over five feet away. I told her in no uncertain terms that if they were tearing strips out of each other I *would* be physically seperating them and damn the consequences. She apparently had no thought-ending cliché for that one. She also had no answer to my assertion that the centre rules undermined *my* natural rights as a parent to protect my children, except to state that oh, we still had those rights – to which my reply was “Well from what we’ve witnessed today they should be coming home with *US* in that case”. She went very quiet on that one after the short gasp. I’m not sure if that was mock shock or genuine.

– Last week, Benjamin exhibited a wound on his midriff which looked like a friction burn – grazed through the skin, and it hadn’t even been cleaned. I wish I’d got a photograph now. He claims that he suffered it tripping over a piece of wood in the school playground. Aren’t schools supposed to be safe? Where did the trip hazard come from? Is it in the accident book? Has the offending piece of timber been removed? The answer to all those questions: NO. The staff aren’t even aware that Benjamin suffered any sort of injury at school (funny they seem to have forgotten the head wound he suffered in the playground last year for which he required a HOSPITAL VISIT and STITCHES. Or the incident with the sharp desk corner, also last year, which left him a disfiguring wound above his right eye (which I do have photos of), that we weren’t informed of the cause of for nearly TWO MONTHS after the event during which time he claimed to have – you guessed it, fell over in the playground! He received NO medical treatment from the school for this, he had to be treated at HOME then the Principal at the school, one Caroline E. Norman, tried to claim it was a CIGARETTE BURN inflicted by HIS MOTHER!) Today, he has a shallow, wide scratch below his right eye on the cheek which he claims to know nothing about, and dirt ingrained in his face, hands and torso. He also smelled of stale urine. It looks like our children are NOT EVEN BEING BATHED.

– WE are being coerced (or they’re trying to anyway, and failing miserably!) to withold all truth from our children. This is fantastic, Benjamin and Jamie are going to be being taught sex education at school starting next academic year, and we’re not “allowed” to tell Nathanael the answer to the question HE HIMSELF ASKED; ergo, the effects of the drug he’s *supposed* to be on on people *without* ADHD!? Please explain the logic of this? That is but one of several examples of active censorship being inflicted upon us, and WE ARE NOT STANDING FOR IT.

If there is something which involves our children and/or their future, we will tell them, and nobody will prevent us from doing that. It is OUR obligation as their natural parents to tell them what is THEIR RIGHT to know. We do not lie to our children, we do not expect them to lie to us; while they were home with us they did not lie to us. Recently they are being caught on what I call small white lies. The lies will only get bigger if they are being brainwashed into keeping things from us. That, and Nathanael’s behaviour since being sent cold turkey from a Class A drug puts him at extreme risk to himself (not just for psychological shock value, but also for its physical manifestations) and puts others around him at extreme risk of injury since he has done this before – destroying a garden at school (luckily nobody was hurt but someone could easily have been since he destroyed not only plants but also planting structures such as sheet film construction greenhouses and some tools). This after ONE HALF DAY without Ritalin! What is happening to him in particular and to the other two when he’s having a violent episode? One can only guess at the amount of force it requires to restrain him while he is violently lashing out. To hold him down would quite possibly injure him – think of someone having a hyper seizure. People have been known to spasm so hard they have broken their own backs.

– We have not seen the contact book, which is apparently intended as a means of communication between ourselves and the contract carer, for several months. We have no telephone contact with our children. We have no written contact with our children. Our extended family have no contact with our children. Their own GRANDMOTHER got THREE MINUTES with them last week as they arrived, only on the strength that she happened to be in town and we met her on her way to the bus stop! The first time she has seen or heard from ANY of them in eleven months! The social workers are *supposed* to be, as agreed in LACR meetings, the care plan, and the Judgement itself dated 2 March 2009, initiating and maintaining contact with their several aunts, uncles, cousins and other blood relatives – they have done NOTHING. We bought Nathanael a mobile phone for his thirteenth birthday to be told that it was “inappropriate” for him to own or operate such a device! Under WHOSE authority and under WHAT LAW do they justify this claim? Government guidelines state that THIRTEEN is the appropriate age for owning a pay-as-you-go cellphone and operating social networking pages and email. The same guidelines make NO EXEMPTION for children in care. Would someone please explain WHY our children are being DENIED their God-given rights to freely communicate whomever they please whenever they please using whatever means made available to them? And WHY we are not seeing the contact book or any other documents particularly now that the children are being prevented from bringing anything to contact with them, not even their school bags – notwithstanding the fact that the last report we did see described Jamie having soiled himself? Why does a nine year old boy soil himself? Is he being physically or sexually abused to the point where he is so anxious about being taken back there that he does not want to *go* back? Bear in mind the fact that the two younger children are and have been for several months now, all but having to be physically pulled off me to be taken to the taxi – THEY DO NOT WANT TO GO TO THE CONTRACT CARER, THEY WANT TO COME HOME WITH US. WHY ARE THEY BEING IGNORED?

– From mid-2007 until the day my children were taken, CAMHS had a case file on them, then Social Services decided that they weren’t needed anymore. Why would mental health services not be required for children who had just been forcibly removed from their family, isolated and desperate to come home? One would have to be practised in the art of lying to children to convince them that they were going to a better place for them not to need it; evidence to the contrary is exhibited every time I see them. They are disturbed, lonely and very, very unhappy in their present situation, the only solution to which is to send them back home where they belong where we can watch over them and protect them.

– My previous concerns about the wellbeing of my children, most of which are ongoing and deeply stressful – you have no idea how stressful unless you have actually been there – were raised with the local police, where a sergeant told me that since they were in local authority care “it’s obviously the best place for them”, they would be taking no action! Have they forgotten about Pindown ALREADY!? Another occasion had a different sergeant accusing me of being mentally ill. I am NOT mentally ill, I am ANGRY! Angry because my family has been torn apart for MONEY. It is obvious to me going by the responses by the police that they are in cahoots with SS to forcibly seperate children from families and maintain the seperation by not giving parents the opportunity to raise legitimate concerns with a public service that was chartered to PROTECT THE INNOCENT and UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE LAND (NOT protect criminals using the Law of the Sea!). This situation severely undermines public trust in the police and encourages vigilanteism. I do not for one minute consider vigilanteism an invalid response at this stage if it means getting my children out of the danger they have found themselves in through no fault oftheir own, for the past year.

– On the subject of school events: We are made aware of school events in which our children are involved – not by the school, but by the parents of other children! We get NOTHING from the school unless we turn up ourselves and demand it (eg term reports, parents’ evenings, open assemblies etc), which suggests to me that we are being deliberately frozen out. What makes this even more insidious is the fact that during the last two LACR meetings the subject of school changes was raised, to which I made clear my position in no uncertain terms: changing the children’s schools is NOT an option under ANY circumstances while they are in care, it being further evidence of SS’ attempts to further alienate our own flesh and blood from us. Aside from that, the fact is we are STILL waiting for the EOY reports for Nathanael from the Nottingham Emmanuel School – why is it being withheld?

– The boys have just had their first birthdays away from home. How would you the reader feel if your children had been taken forcibly from your home, and have to cope with that feeling of utter despair when their birthday doesn’t happen to land on a contact day? Or Christmas? We had no Christmas as such last year. What was the point? Worse than that the fact that we had to further deal with not having ANY contact with our children THROUGHOUT the Christmas holiday – not even a poxy phone call! Turn it around: how would YOU feel if YOU were a child having to spend every day, but especially special days like these, away from your own flesh and blood?

Please, if you have read this far, consider what YOU as a FLESH AND BLOOD HUMAN BEING can do in YOUR position of influence (be it local or national authority, media, whatever) to STOP this treatment of these three children and influence Government policy to prevent the same happening to others – and remember also that this is NOT something you can throw more Statutes at, we have more than enough Statutes covering the abuse, all it requires is proper application of those Statutes, of Common Law, of common sense and for the public to be made aware of what is happening to our children and the fact that it could just as easily be THEIR children. Or even YOUR children!

Yours Sincerely,

James of the First-line Family of Moore
Common Law Free Man of the Land of England

Pen Camcorder also available at Maplins

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 9:42 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

Product Description

Pen CamcorderPen Camcorder

This cool new gadget allows you to record up to 16 hours of video and sound directly to the pen’s built-in flash drive. This device looks and writes like a regular pen, so no one will know you are actually recording! This is made possible by a micro DVR (digital video recorder) that is built into the pen. Simply press the button on the bottom of the pen to begin capturing footage.

The possibilities are endless:

http://www.pencamcorder.co.uk/products.php?product=Mini-Pen-DVR-Camcorder-4GB

  • Record your special moments without a bulky camcorder
  • Bring to museums, art galleries, or trade shows for discreet recording
  • Perfect for on-the-go video journalists
  • Bring it everywhere you go to quickly capture any moment.This camera pen is easy to use and features a pinhole camera, making it ideal for discreet and undetected recording.

    When you are done recording, simply unscrew the pen to reveal a standard USB drive. Just plug the drive into your PC’s USB port to view or transfer your captured footage, making it easy to archive or email your video files. Connecting the drive to your computer will also recharge the camera pen, or you can use the included wall charger.

    This camera pen records AVI video clips with a video resolution of 352×288 pixels and also works as a 2 mega pixel camera as well. In addition, this fully functional ball point pen provides smooth writing with black ink that can be replaced with standard refills.
    Features

    • CMOS pinhole camera and micro DVR built into a pen

    • Looks and writes with a normal pen – no one will know you are actually recording

    • Pen unscrews to reveal a USB drive that you can connect to your PC

    • Stores up to 16 hours of video at a time, which can be archived on your computer

    • Built-in Lithium polymer battery can be charged via USB

    • Up to 3 hour battery life per charge

    • Simple, easy to use one-touch recording – just point and shoot!

    • Stylish black and silver design

      List of Contents: DVR Pen Camcorder, USB cable, software CD, user’s manual, 1 year warranty.


EXPOSING CORRUPT EXPERT WITNESS DR GEORGE HIBBERT……………. keeps trying to complain to wordpress for defamation ………. im not defaming you i have copied and pasted what others have said ……. reset to public view ……. sue me

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.”
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
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.

Legal Abuse Syndrome suffered By Parents Courtesy of Social Services and The Family Courts

Synopsis of Legal Abuse Syndrome
Legal Abuse Syndrome is a 234 page book which discusses the effects of, and steps to recovery from Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS), which the author has defined as a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from abusive and protracted litigation.
Anyone subjected to the abuses of the American civil justice system will immediately identify with the cover and quotations appearing on the back cover of the book.
Ms. Huffer begins in the Preface by defining LAS, and in the Introduction identifies seven LAS victims whose stories she has woven into a highly readable self-help book for other victims of LAS.  Legal Abuse Syndrome also doubles as a text book for mental health professionals providing therapy to LAS victims.
The book is divided into 10 chapters.  Beginning in Chapters 1 and 2, Huffer identifies the symptoms of the LAS victim and the etiology of LAS.  These two introductory chapters are followed by 8 chapters in which the author breaks down the Eight Steps to Recovery, consisting of Debriefing, Grieving, Obsession, Blaming, Deshaming, Reframing, Empowerment and Recovery.
Each chapter begins with a relevant quote which sets the stage for the material presented.  The book concludes with Maya Angelou’s powerful poem, “I rise.”
CHAPTER SUMMARIES
Chapter 1 – “Invisible Hostages” reveals the hostage condition that results from betrayals of trust and the quiet crimes.  Symptoms of the hostage-stage psychological reactions are put forth with a list of the white-collar crimes, litigation/judicial atrocities and bureaucratic failings that cumulatively assault victims.  The case of James graphically portrays the path from the initial affront through the aftermath of the crime.  James went to law enforcement agencies, sued through the courts at huge expense, and found his situation worsened to the point of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  Chapter 1 includes one cartoon and two illustrations.
Chapter 2 – “The Epidemic” illustrates the chemical changes that take place in the brain during prolonged victimization.  It becomes clear that a profound sense of helplessness in the face of jeopardy causes post traumatic stress disorder.  The longer the feeling of helplessness lasts, the more pronounced are the symptoms.  Victims find themselves in the symptoms as they relate to their own experiences.  James shares that at the time he needed the protection of his judicial system, it betrayed him.  He was left unable to obtain justice.  Extensive research supports the theory that “psycholegal” post traumatic stress disorder is a common occurrence in litigants and victims of the invisible crimes.  The reader can look around and see the “cellophane-wrapped” victims who have moved beyond rage to an implosive, cyclical lifestyle.  These victims usually remain invisible.  The chapter includes one illustration.
Chapter 3 – “Debriefing” begins the second part of the book, the eight steps to recovery.  Debriefing is an activity that the reader can do.   It centers around a graphic, processing sheet that delineates losses, feelings and facts.  This chapter begins a caring journey.  The sense of isolation is relieved in victims as they see their experience(s) begin to take a manageable form.  The case of P.J., who broke through denial during debriefing helps us understand how to effectively respond to victims.  This chapter also lists “absolutely what not to say to a victim.”  The chapter includes one illustration and two reader participation graphics.
Chapter 4 – “Grieving” clarifies that loss of trust is the greatest loss known to a human being.  The case of Judy demonstrates the profound effect of bureaucratic and law enforcement behavior on a victim.  Judy had to face the FBI, the IRS, and court after a betrayal by her husband.  Grieving masques as depression (the common cold of mental illness), exhaustion, varied illnesses and conditions.  Grieving over loss of property is usually discounted in American culture.  “Takings” have become a part of business strategy and are often done through the use of the system.  Bankruptcy court, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the IRS effect takings of property without due process.  Takings threaten the lifeblood of the nation.  The case of John depicts the nebulous nature of grief.  It is pushed aside if the loss is not “respectably” large.  John breaks down over a tiny tangible issue that, in fact, reflects huge intangible losses.  In this chapter we see that the loss of belief systems, trust, and ideals are critical to the loss picture.  Each case will show that our protective systems did not function as intended, and inadvertently or by design, intensified the trauma.  Legal Abuse Syndrome , a journey Beyond Rage… and Back, articulates that the right to redress in order to prevent losses and to exact recompense is key to a sense of safety and security necessary for mental health.
Chapter 5 – “Obsession” leads us toward a sense of control over our lives again.  Readers become aware that obsession is a natural response to victimization.  Randomization is a difficult concept to grasp in life.  When good people are assaulted and left unaffirmed by their culture’s systems, life proceeds on a path with no moral compass – no guide to safety.  A list of obsessive styles is characterized by descriptive names, i.e. “Lifeguard,” obsesses around health; where as an “Inventorier” counts and accounts for all belongings, endlessly.  What to do about easing obsession is listed with case examples.  A sense of humor interweaves as victims look at their obsessive selves with acceptance.
Chapter 6 – “Blaming” faces victim-blaming head on.  Society discourages blaming; therefore, victims are praised for taking responsibility for the awful things that happen to them.  Further, victims often see little recourse once blame is established.  Attribution is a necessary step toward justice because it reinforces the moral code.  This chapter gives a victim a graphic for assessing degrees of blame and then enriches the reader with specific blaming actions dramatized by James and the other cases.  Barriers to blaming are explored, such as guilt and societal pressure.  There is a self-blame checklist followed by the danger of self blame.  Revenge and punishment are contrasted with appropriate, quality blaming actions which drive behavior toward the moral code.  Those ignored, outrageous assaults by attorneys and the systems, such as slander and character assassination in the courtroom and denied right to redress, are listed at the end of the chapter.  Victims begin to feel that they are not crazy or at fault.  This chapter includes a reader participation check list.
Chapter 7 – “Deshaming” offers a totally unique approach to understanding human motivation in terms of power.  A continuum is presented which ranks a person’s motivating force as either conscience-based or power-based.  Human interactions can be visualized as on a grid.  The conscience-based person is often victimized even though he may have spiritual power.  Power-based people are motivated by envy and a need for superior posture.  Lying is a key tool of the power motivated person.  Lying wins over truth.  Here is where violation of the moral code is “business as usual” for some and an outrage to others.  Shame is known to the conscience-based person,who often absorbs shame from the violator as well.  A tournament of the game, “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” is used as an example of strategies that help conscience-based people learn to identify and cope with power-based individuals.  Specific skills are taught regarding cooperation, competition, and self-protection.  Thus, to free them from shame, the readers are able to relinquish undeserved shame and to follow guiding principles for modification of their belief systems.  The case of Manny exemplifies the predicament and the process for deshaming.  The chapter includes two illustrations.
Chapter 8 – “Reframing” is the pivotal procedure that embarks upon recovery.  All five steps leading to reframing are required to effectively achieve this phase.  The victim shifts from a painful perception of self to a new, open, morally sound and personally inspired view of himself.  There is an LAS Reframe Exercise which allows the painful issue to come forth.  Then the pain is put to the reframe steps.  The victim might say, “I was a fool.”  Reframed, the victim will say, “I was a trustworthy person, I believed that others were largely trustworthy too.”  Then the victim searches for the wisdom gained from the experience.  The chapter includes one reader participation checklist.
Chapter 9 – “Empowerment” more than anything, brings a fresh approach for legal and bureaucratic problem solving to the ordinary person.  Steps are blueprints:  1) seek and destroy misinformation, 2) from pragmatic expectations, 3) avoid the predictable, 4) persevere, 5) use mental toughness, 6) become a vigilante consumer, 7) call a crime a crime.  Misinformation is a strategic tool used by abusers of the justice systems.  It crushes the force of truth distorting the course towards justice.  Oppression thrives on misinformation.  Empowerment requires effective attacks on misinformation through official channels.  The predictable path is owned by the power-centered.  They travel ahead and prepare to take the conscience-centered person out at every turn.  Victims need each other and creative approaches.  This chapter ties into Appendix B which contains a host of resources.  Eleven tools and techniques are presented.  Rules and regulations of an institution are usually broken by those who abuse from within the organization.  Finding those violations empowers a victim tremendously.  Mental toughness is the ability to never lose focus regardless of attacks or diversions.  Vigilante consumers focus on the real bottom line in America, the consumer.  When crimes occur, they must be treated as crimes and dealt with by consumers who keep the focus on the real bottom line.  The chapter contains one graphic.
Chapter 10 – “Recovery” brings perspective.  Victims become veterans who have an important function in correcting societal wrongs.  Readers are brought up to date by parting words from the victims whose cases were portrayed in the book.  It becomes apparent that recovery is not a destination but a journey wherein the eight steps are incorporated into a renewed lifestyle.  Forgiveness and restoration are discussed as quite separate issues from recovery.  Veterans are no longer cellophane-wrapped hostages but are back in the game of life, risking once more.  Trust as a staple, societal issue is explored in the context of LAS being a totally preventable assault to the mental health of our nation.
In the Conclusion , Ms. Huffer thanks her patients who have trusted her and taught her that there is an invisible fabric woven of American character found in the ordinary person.  It is an invitation for these victims who refused to be soul-murdered to lead the nation back into a future of hope, trust and a code of American conduct that they represent to quietly.  The Epilogue contains a snapshot of an LAS victim that has been driven beyond rage.
The book includes a Bibliography which cites referenced and related works included as well as a Glossary of terms used in the book.
Appendix A defines clinical post traumatic stress disorder.
Appendix B – Resources for the Empowerment of the Ordinary Person.  This appendix provides the LAS victim with a list of organizations dedicated to legal reform and victim rights.
Appendix C – Victims-Witness Protection Act of 1984.
Appendix D contains worksheets to be used in conjunction with the book.
The following pages contain the Preface and Introduction as they appear in the actual book.
Preface
If you are deeply disillusioned and feeling oppressed as an American Citizen, resulting from experience with our justice system, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If you’ve been a litigant in court and justice was not to be obtained at any price, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If you fantasize an act of vigilante vengeance because it seems like the only recourse, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If you’ve reported a crime and found that you were punished instead of the criminal, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If creativity and dreams have been left in the past because their development was ripped from you and torn to shreds by your protective systems, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If you feel numb, disconnected, and vulnerable, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If you feel that you have been victimized twice, once by a perpetrator and then by your protective system, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
Some will deny that Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS) exists.  They will remind us that we have an adversarial system of justice.  Abuses will be written off as adversaries battling for their clients.  Victims will be nothing more than casualties of a “fight for justice.”  Others will worry that victims of LAS will want compensation for their psychological injuries.  Skeptics will ask, “Aren’t LAS victims just malingerers wanting more from the system?”
I do not indict the legal profession, fine judges and hard working public servants.  I applaud those who serve their clients well in any milieu.  We do not bash any organization or profession in this book.  Lawyers, judges, FBI agents, police officers and investigators have all crossed my private practice and helped me to delineate the abuse of power that permeates every profession.  Many of these professionals are themselves invisible victims also and need the support of the public.
Abusers are studied in this book as a method of exposing to LAS victims the predicament that oppresses them.  The systems are explored in the light of victims’ experiences.  The psycholegal condition is revealed along with skills to help the victim cope with abusers of his systems.  The scope is a large one for a marriage and family therapist or or fellow victim to tackle.  It may feel unwieldy and threatening to the reader.  However, reading and rereading has produced results and has motivated me to risk a big project and perhaps an unpopular one in behalf of those invisible victims who can heal in spite of systems without a cure.
A firm warning to those who would use the following material to damage or discredit any citizen in any manner:
LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME IS A NATURAL AND NORMAL RESPONSE TO AN ABNORMAL, UNNATURAL, CUMULATIVE TRAUMA, AS WITH ALL POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDERS.  ANY ATTEMPT BY ANY PERSON TO DISCREDIT AN INDIVIDUAL’S TESTIMONY, CHARACTER, OR ACTIONS DUE TO THEIR SUFFERING FROM LAS IS TO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THE ABERRANT NATURE OF OUR SYSTEM OF PROBLEM-SOLVING.  ANY ALLY OF CIVILIAZATION MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY SUCH BEHAVIOR AS ABUSIVE, PUT A HALT TO DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS, AND DEVOTE THEIR ENERGIES TO RESTORATION OF VICTIMS OF THE “SYSTEMS”.
No one likes to think of himself as a victim.  Immediately, it conjures an image of a loser or someone making poor life-choices.    Yet, in spite of resistance to facing our victimization, legal abuses have become common.  When abuses occur, victims are created.  We either have to face that we are victimized or accept an aberration to civilized living as being “just the way it is”.
Laws provide for courts, agencies, law enforcement bureaucracies, and regulatory services.  We depend on them to resolve our disputes and to protect our cherished rights.  When they fail, our nation must deal with the victims and vigilantes left in the wake of officially sanctioned wrongdoing.
In this book, we will explore cases that are shocking and fascinating.  They illustrate abuses perpetrated by our legally instituted protective systems and the pain and suffering that results.  Citizens are driven “Beyond Rage.”  However startling and moving our cases may be, we have only touched a segment of their lives and experiences.  Each case has left unrevealed depth of trauma and complication that would be prohibitive in space and time to write about in one book.
This work results from my experiences of the past twenty years as a marriage and family therapist in private practice.  Throughout my career, a certain discomfort gnawed at me regarding clients who attended my various groups and seminars.  While the seminars dealt with the subjects of codependency, substance abuse, parenting, divorce adjustment, assertiveness, stress, or whatever the current topic dictated, there always remained the walking wounded.  Those were clients, whose true source of pain was not recognized by family or friends.  Worse, it was never clearly defined by helping professionals.  With no diagnosis, their condition could not be targeted for treatment.  Invisible trauma nebulously danced around the topics, never to be healed in these hungry participants.
It wasn’t until a white-collar crime was perpetrated on my family that I saw these walking wounded with uncomfortably opened eyes.  After nearly a decade of struggling with the justice system, and working with other such victims,I have concluded that the enormous betrayals and inefficiencies that make up bureaucratic post-crime experiences, are literally attacking the emotional health of this nation.  Victims have no satisfying place to turn.  Rage accumulates and its sequelae have reached epidemic proportions.
A therapist must, of course, check such observations against the danger of inaccurately projecting onto a client personal feelings or attitudes that go beyond the therapeutic use of self.  I have done that.  Even more uncomfortably now, i see the massive validation of my theory by participants in the “Beyond Rage” seminars.  Still theoretical, but deadly serious, is the thesis of this book that victims in America are, first, assaulted by crime and, secondly, by abuses of power and authority administered by the systems their tax dollars support to provide due process of law.  In short, they get a “double whammy.”
People of principle find their decency, trustworthiness, responsibility, and use of their courts trounced by systems that perpetrate judicial and bureaucratic atrocities.  Americans, who follow a code of conscience, encounter a profound imbalance between the abuses of power perpetrated by those entrusted with the systems and the prohibitive conscience of the ordinary person to violation of values and laws.  At the heart of this book is the threatened psychic underpinning of the American citizen which is tied into the Constitutionally protected rights that we depend upon.  To imperil the basic freedoms, which Americans are taught are their birthright, is to jeopardize conditions of trust and safety necessary for a healthy, productive life.
Victims challenge the finest of counseling techniques.  The lack of closure combines with prolonged, cruel, and unusual punishment exerted by the court system.  Ongoing strain of litigation then interfaces with psychological issues.  Diagnoses are tricky and dynamic.  Healing techniques and strategies are interrupted by the trauma of the proceedings or behaviors of court personnel.  Stress reduction training is of marginal value for a litigant who will regularly be administered another dose of outrage.  The best of family intervention is defeated if the family court renders a visitation arrangement that destroys continuity in the raising of the children or if the current custodial parent is harassed and stalked, unprotected by the law enforcement system.
Outrage is tough enough.  Beyond rage is terribly painful territory.  I caution the reader that to earnestly use this self-help material for healing purposes will be challenging.  On the other hand, if you choose to stay beyond rage, you exist in a type of living death.  So victims of the systems are caught between a tough place and a really hard place.  Go slowly, get involved in groups, if possible, but don’t let your lifeblood be stripped from you without a fight.  This book will help to get you back on your fighting feet.  You won’t change massive systems or reform your country in all likelihood.  However, when all of the trauma has been processed, you will become an empowered, effective individual again.
More and more, helping professionals are being confronted by “psycholegal” issues.  Patients are driven beyond rage over an extended period of time during which victims travel an isolated road.  The impact of the invisible assaults usually are ignored.
Vigilante violence results when the needs of the majority are not being met by the systems (Tucker).  What of the gentle and decent person who values a law abiding mode of life?  Unless the unique needs of these victims are identified and healing processes made accessible to them, the cost in pain, suffering, disillusionment, and shutdown of creativity to the individual and society is immeasurable.

Synopsis of Legal Abuse Syndrome
Legal Abuse Syndrome is a 234 page book which discusses the effects of, and steps to recovery from Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS), which the author has defined as a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from abusive and protracted litigation.
Anyone subjected to the abuses of the American civil justice system will immediately identify with the cover and quotations appearing on the back cover of the book.
Ms. Huffer begins in the Preface by defining LAS, and in the Introduction identifies seven LAS victims whose stories she has woven into a highly readable self-help book for other victims of LAS.  Legal Abuse Syndrome also doubles as a text book for mental health professionals providing therapy to LAS victims.
The book is divided into 10 chapters.  Beginning in Chapters 1 and 2, Huffer identifies the symptoms of the LAS victim and the etiology of LAS.  These two introductory chapters are followed by 8 chapters in which the author breaks down the Eight Steps to Recovery, consisting of Debriefing, Grieving, Obsession, Blaming, Deshaming, Reframing, Empowerment and Recovery.
Each chapter begins with a relevant quote which sets the stage for the material presented.  The book concludes with Maya Angelou’s powerful poem, “I rise.”
CHAPTER SUMMARIES
Chapter 1 – “Invisible Hostages” reveals the hostage condition that results from betrayals of trust and the quiet crimes.  Symptoms of the hostage-stage psychological reactions are put forth with a list of the white-collar crimes, litigation/judicial atrocities and bureaucratic failings that cumulatively assault victims.  The case of James graphically portrays the path from the initial affront through the aftermath of the crime.  James went to law enforcement agencies, sued through the courts at huge expense, and found his situation worsened to the point of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  Chapter 1 includes one cartoon and two illustrations.
Chapter 2 – “The Epidemic” illustrates the chemical changes that take place in the brain during prolonged victimization.  It becomes clear that a profound sense of helplessness in the face of jeopardy causes post traumatic stress disorder.  The longer the feeling of helplessness lasts, the more pronounced are the symptoms.  Victims find themselves in the symptoms as they relate to their own experiences.  James shares that at the time he needed the protection of his judicial system, it betrayed him.  He was left unable to obtain justice.  Extensive research supports the theory that “psycholegal” post traumatic stress disorder is a common occurrence in litigants and victims of the invisible crimes.  The reader can look around and see the “cellophane-wrapped” victims who have moved beyond rage to an implosive, cyclical lifestyle.  These victims usually remain invisible.  The chapter includes one illustration.
Chapter 3 – “Debriefing” begins the second part of the book, the eight steps to recovery.  Debriefing is an activity that the reader can do.   It centers around a graphic, processing sheet that delineates losses, feelings and facts.  This chapter begins a caring journey.  The sense of isolation is relieved in victims as they see their experience(s) begin to take a manageable form.  The case of P.J., who broke through denial during debriefing helps us understand how to effectively respond to victims.  This chapter also lists “absolutely what not to say to a victim.”  The chapter includes one illustration and two reader participation graphics.
Chapter 4 – “Grieving” clarifies that loss of trust is the greatest loss known to a human being.  The case of Judy demonstrates the profound effect of bureaucratic and law enforcement behavior on a victim.  Judy had to face the FBI, the IRS, and court after a betrayal by her husband.  Grieving masques as depression (the common cold of mental illness), exhaustion, varied illnesses and conditions.  Grieving over loss of property is usually discounted in American culture.  “Takings” have become a part of business strategy and are often done through the use of the system.  Bankruptcy court, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the IRS effect takings of property without due process.  Takings threaten the lifeblood of the nation.  The case of John depicts the nebulous nature of grief.  It is pushed aside if the loss is not “respectably” large.  John breaks down over a tiny tangible issue that, in fact, reflects huge intangible losses.  In this chapter we see that the loss of belief systems, trust, and ideals are critical to the loss picture.  Each case will show that our protective systems did not function as intended, and inadvertently or by design, intensified the trauma.  Legal Abuse Syndrome , a journey Beyond Rage… and Back, articulates that the right to redress in order to prevent losses and to exact recompense is key to a sense of safety and security necessary for mental health.
Chapter 5 – “Obsession” leads us toward a sense of control over our lives again.  Readers become aware that obsession is a natural response to victimization.  Randomization is a difficult concept to grasp in life.  When good people are assaulted and left unaffirmed by their culture’s systems, life proceeds on a path with no moral compass – no guide to safety.  A list of obsessive styles is characterized by descriptive names, i.e. “Lifeguard,” obsesses around health; where as an “Inventorier” counts and accounts for all belongings, endlessly.  What to do about easing obsession is listed with case examples.  A sense of humor interweaves as victims look at their obsessive selves with acceptance.
Chapter 6 – “Blaming” faces victim-blaming head on.  Society discourages blaming; therefore, victims are praised for taking responsibility for the awful things that happen to them.  Further, victims often see little recourse once blame is established.  Attribution is a necessary step toward justice because it reinforces the moral code.  This chapter gives a victim a graphic for assessing degrees of blame and then enriches the reader with specific blaming actions dramatized by James and the other cases.  Barriers to blaming are explored, such as guilt and societal pressure.  There is a self-blame checklist followed by the danger of self blame.  Revenge and punishment are contrasted with appropriate, quality blaming actions which drive behavior toward the moral code.  Those ignored, outrageous assaults by attorneys and the systems, such as slander and character assassination in the courtroom and denied right to redress, are listed at the end of the chapter.  Victims begin to feel that they are not crazy or at fault.  This chapter includes a reader participation check list.
Chapter 7 – “Deshaming” offers a totally unique approach to understanding human motivation in terms of power.  A continuum is presented which ranks a person’s motivating force as either conscience-based or power-based.  Human interactions can be visualized as on a grid.  The conscience-based person is often victimized even though he may have spiritual power.  Power-based people are motivated by envy and a need for superior posture.  Lying is a key tool of the power motivated person.  Lying wins over truth.  Here is where violation of the moral code is “business as usual” for some and an outrage to others.  Shame is known to the conscience-based person,who often absorbs shame from the violator as well.  A tournament of the game, “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” is used as an example of strategies that help conscience-based people learn to identify and cope with power-based individuals.  Specific skills are taught regarding cooperation, competition, and self-protection.  Thus, to free them from shame, the readers are able to relinquish undeserved shame and to follow guiding principles for modification of their belief systems.  The case of Manny exemplifies the predicament and the process for deshaming.  The chapter includes two illustrations.
Chapter 8 – “Reframing” is the pivotal procedure that embarks upon recovery.  All five steps leading to reframing are required to effectively achieve this phase.  The victim shifts from a painful perception of self to a new, open, morally sound and personally inspired view of himself.  There is an LAS Reframe Exercise which allows the painful issue to come forth.  Then the pain is put to the reframe steps.  The victim might say, “I was a fool.”  Reframed, the victim will say, “I was a trustworthy person, I believed that others were largely trustworthy too.”  Then the victim searches for the wisdom gained from the experience.  The chapter includes one reader participation checklist.
Chapter 9 – “Empowerment” more than anything, brings a fresh approach for legal and bureaucratic problem solving to the ordinary person.  Steps are blueprints:  1) seek and destroy misinformation, 2) from pragmatic expectations, 3) avoid the predictable, 4) persevere, 5) use mental toughness, 6) become a vigilante consumer, 7) call a crime a crime.  Misinformation is a strategic tool used by abusers of the justice systems.  It crushes the force of truth distorting the course towards justice.  Oppression thrives on misinformation.  Empowerment requires effective attacks on misinformation through official channels.  The predictable path is owned by the power-centered.  They travel ahead and prepare to take the conscience-centered person out at every turn.  Victims need each other and creative approaches.  This chapter ties into Appendix B which contains a host of resources.  Eleven tools and techniques are presented.  Rules and regulations of an institution are usually broken by those who abuse from within the organization.  Finding those violations empowers a victim tremendously.  Mental toughness is the ability to never lose focus regardless of attacks or diversions.  Vigilante consumers focus on the real bottom line in America, the consumer.  When crimes occur, they must be treated as crimes and dealt with by consumers who keep the focus on the real bottom line.  The chapter contains one graphic.
Chapter 10 – “Recovery” brings perspective.  Victims become veterans who have an important function in correcting societal wrongs.  Readers are brought up to date by parting words from the victims whose cases were portrayed in the book.  It becomes apparent that recovery is not a destination but a journey wherein the eight steps are incorporated into a renewed lifestyle.  Forgiveness and restoration are discussed as quite separate issues from recovery.  Veterans are no longer cellophane-wrapped hostages but are back in the game of life, risking once more.  Trust as a staple, societal issue is explored in the context of LAS being a totally preventable assault to the mental health of our nation.
In the Conclusion , Ms. Huffer thanks her patients who have trusted her and taught her that there is an invisible fabric woven of American character found in the ordinary person.  It is an invitation for these victims who refused to be soul-murdered to lead the nation back into a future of hope, trust and a code of American conduct that they represent to quietly.  The Epilogue contains a snapshot of an LAS victim that has been driven beyond rage.
The book includes a Bibliography which cites referenced and related works included as well as a Glossary of terms used in the book.
Appendix A defines clinical post traumatic stress disorder.
Appendix B – Resources for the Empowerment of the Ordinary Person.  This appendix provides the LAS victim with a list of organizations dedicated to legal reform and victim rights.
Appendix C – Victims-Witness Protection Act of 1984.
Appendix D contains worksheets to be used in conjunction with the book.
The following pages contain the Preface and Introduction as they appear in the actual book.
Preface
If you are deeply disillusioned and feeling oppressed as an American Citizen, resulting from experience with our justice system, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If you’ve been a litigant in court and justice was not to be obtained at any price, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If you fantasize an act of vigilante vengeance because it seems like the only recourse, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If you’ve reported a crime and found that you were punished instead of the criminal, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If creativity and dreams have been left in the past because their development was ripped from you and torn to shreds by your protective systems, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If you feel numb, disconnected, and vulnerable, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If you feel that you have been victimized twice, once by a perpetrator and then by your protective system, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.Some will deny that Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS) exists.  They will remind us that we have an adversarial system of justice.  Abuses will be written off as adversaries battling for their clients.  Victims will be nothing more than casualties of a “fight for justice.”  Others will worry that victims of LAS will want compensation for their psychological injuries.  Skeptics will ask, “Aren’t LAS victims just malingerers wanting more from the system?”
I do not indict the legal profession, fine judges and hard working public servants.  I applaud those who serve their clients well in any milieu.  We do not bash any organization or profession in this book.  Lawyers, judges, FBI agents, police officers and investigators have all crossed my private practice and helped me to delineate the abuse of power that permeates every profession.  Many of these professionals are themselves invisible victims also and need the support of the public.
Abusers are studied in this book as a method of exposing to LAS victims the predicament that oppresses them.  The systems are explored in the light of victims’ experiences.  The psycholegal condition is revealed along with skills to help the victim cope with abusers of his systems.  The scope is a large one for a marriage and family therapist or or fellow victim to tackle.  It may feel unwieldy and threatening to the reader.  However, reading and rereading has produced results and has motivated me to risk a big project and perhaps an unpopular one in behalf of those invisible victims who can heal in spite of systems without a cure.
A firm warning to those who would use the following material to damage or discredit any citizen in any manner:
LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME IS A NATURAL AND NORMAL RESPONSE TO AN ABNORMAL, UNNATURAL, CUMULATIVE TRAUMA, AS WITH ALL POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDERS.  ANY ATTEMPT BY ANY PERSON TO DISCREDIT AN INDIVIDUAL’S TESTIMONY, CHARACTER, OR ACTIONS DUE TO THEIR SUFFERING FROM LAS IS TO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THE ABERRANT NATURE OF OUR SYSTEM OF PROBLEM-SOLVING.  ANY ALLY OF CIVILIAZATION MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY SUCH BEHAVIOR AS ABUSIVE, PUT A HALT TO DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS, AND DEVOTE THEIR ENERGIES TO RESTORATION OF VICTIMS OF THE “SYSTEMS”.
No one likes to think of himself as a victim.  Immediately, it conjures an image of a loser or someone making poor life-choices.    Yet, in spite of resistance to facing our victimization, legal abuses have become common.  When abuses occur, victims are created.  We either have to face that we are victimized or accept an aberration to civilized living as being “just the way it is”.
Laws provide for courts, agencies, law enforcement bureaucracies, and regulatory services.  We depend on them to resolve our disputes and to protect our cherished rights.  When they fail, our nation must deal with the victims and vigilantes left in the wake of officially sanctioned wrongdoing.
In this book, we will explore cases that are shocking and fascinating.  They illustrate abuses perpetrated by our legally instituted protective systems and the pain and suffering that results.  Citizens are driven “Beyond Rage.”  However startling and moving our cases may be, we have only touched a segment of their lives and experiences.  Each case has left unrevealed depth of trauma and complication that would be prohibitive in space and time to write about in one book.
This work results from my experiences of the past twenty years as a marriage and family therapist in private practice.  Throughout my career, a certain discomfort gnawed at me regarding clients who attended my various groups and seminars.  While the seminars dealt with the subjects of codependency, substance abuse, parenting, divorce adjustment, assertiveness, stress, or whatever the current topic dictated, there always remained the walking wounded.  Those were clients, whose true source of pain was not recognized by family or friends.  Worse, it was never clearly defined by helping professionals.  With no diagnosis, their condition could not be targeted for treatment.  Invisible trauma nebulously danced around the topics, never to be healed in these hungry participants.
It wasn’t until a white-collar crime was perpetrated on my family that I saw these walking wounded with uncomfortably opened eyes.  After nearly a decade of struggling with the justice system, and working with other such victims,I have concluded that the enormous betrayals and inefficiencies that make up bureaucratic post-crime experiences, are literally attacking the emotional health of this nation.  Victims have no satisfying place to turn.  Rage accumulates and its sequelae have reached epidemic proportions.
A therapist must, of course, check such observations against the danger of inaccurately projecting onto a client personal feelings or attitudes that go beyond the therapeutic use of self.  I have done that.  Even more uncomfortably now, i see the massive validation of my theory by participants in the “Beyond Rage” seminars.  Still theoretical, but deadly serious, is the thesis of this book that victims in America are, first, assaulted by crime and, secondly, by abuses of power and authority administered by the systems their tax dollars support to provide due process of law.  In short, they get a “double whammy.”
People of principle find their decency, trustworthiness, responsibility, and use of their courts trounced by systems that perpetrate judicial and bureaucratic atrocities.  Americans, who follow a code of conscience, encounter a profound imbalance between the abuses of power perpetrated by those entrusted with the systems and the prohibitive conscience of the ordinary person to violation of values and laws.  At the heart of this book is the threatened psychic underpinning of the American citizen which is tied into the Constitutionally protected rights that we depend upon.  To imperil the basic freedoms, which Americans are taught are their birthright, is to jeopardize conditions of trust and safety necessary for a healthy, productive life.
Victims challenge the finest of counseling techniques.  The lack of closure combines with prolonged, cruel, and unusual punishment exerted by the court system.  Ongoing strain of litigation then interfaces with psychological issues.  Diagnoses are tricky and dynamic.  Healing techniques and strategies are interrupted by the trauma of the proceedings or behaviors of court personnel.  Stress reduction training is of marginal value for a litigant who will regularly be administered another dose of outrage.  The best of family intervention is defeated if the family court renders a visitation arrangement that destroys continuity in the raising of the children or if the current custodial parent is harassed and stalked, unprotected by the law enforcement system.
Outrage is tough enough.  Beyond rage is terribly painful territory.  I caution the reader that to earnestly use this self-help material for healing purposes will be challenging.  On the other hand, if you choose to stay beyond rage, you exist in a type of living death.  So victims of the systems are caught between a tough place and a really hard place.  Go slowly, get involved in groups, if possible, but don’t let your lifeblood be stripped from you without a fight.  This book will help to get you back on your fighting feet.  You won’t change massive systems or reform your country in all likelihood.  However, when all of the trauma has been processed, you will become an empowered, effective individual again.
More and more, helping professionals are being confronted by “psycholegal” issues.  Patients are driven beyond rage over an extended period of time during which victims travel an isolated road.  The impact of the invisible assaults usually are ignored.
Vigilante violence results when the needs of the majority are not being met by the systems (Tucker).  What of the gentle and decent person who values a law abiding mode of life?  Unless the unique needs of these victims are identified and healing processes made accessible to them, the cost in pain, suffering, disillusionment, and shutdown of creativity to the individual and society is immeasurable.

http://www.legalabusesyndrome.org/synopsisof-legal-abuse-syndrome.php

A poem by a victim of Staffordshire Local Authority Child Abuse

Betrayal of the Innocent
(fucking social workers)
Betrayed by social workers & the state
Left to contemplate my own fate
They thought they knew what was best
Where are they now its time to confess?
They said my parents were failing me
That they could do better I would see
That I needed protection from my self
The state would provide it with all its wealth
So the court sent me into care
Stability would be found once there
But stability was not found
Just state sponsored child abusers
Paid by the state sponsored pound
So forgive me for pointing out your hypocrisy
For you were the ones protecting me
Yet my parents only ever loved me
My parents never ever hurt me
You took me away from a loving home
And with sick perverted abusers
You left me alone
You said there would be no losers
Well my mom died when I was nineteen
I’ve lost forever what might have been
I feel like I don’t know my own dad
I have every reason to feel this sad
You social workers & barristers & judges
You really think you know
You know nothing fucking nothing
How plainly it does show.
Note:
I have no doubt that at some point I will re write this in another way.  As the days months and years go by I get more and more angry that the state and the know it all social workers had the audacity to say my parents were not fit to look after me. For sure they were both simple people who found it hard to cope. But all they ever did was love me the best they knew how.  The so called wise people in court sent me into care of the local authority. I spent time at Chadswell assessment centre in Lichfield, and then went onto Riverside children’s home in Rocester near Uttoxeter. Both places after years of cover ups have had several people jailed for serious child abuse. Charges of rape + sexual assault + assault and all manner of smilar stuff have been proved.  At the time children and that’s what we were were crying out to be heard.  We were so often ignored.  Things were swept under the carpet.  The thing that hurts me the most is that I was deprived of time with my mom who died when I was so young.
The state was taking and making decisions about children’s lives. About our futures & yet they left us at the mercy of perverts I can never ever forgive that. Bastards bastards bastards……………….

Betrayal of the Innocent(fucking social workers) Betrayed by social workers & the stateLeft to contemplate my own fateThey thought they knew what was bestWhere are they now its time to confess? They said my parents were failing meThat they could do better I would seeThat I needed protection from my selfThe state would provide it with all its wealth So the court sent me into careStability would be found once thereBut stability was not foundJust state sponsored child abusersPaid by the state sponsored pound So forgive me for pointing out your hypocrisyFor you were the ones protecting meYet my parents only ever loved meMy parents never ever hurt me You took me away from a loving homeAnd with sick perverted abusersYou left me aloneYou said there would be no losers Well my mom died when I was nineteenI’ve lost forever what might have beenI feel like I don’t know my own dadI have every reason to feel this sad You social workers & barristers & judgesYou really think you knowYou know nothing fucking nothingHow plainly it does show.Note:I have no doubt that at some point I will re write this in another way.  As the days months and years go by I get more and more angry that the state and the know it all social workers had the audacity to say my parents were not fit to look after me. For sure they were both simple people who found it hard to cope. But all they ever did was love me the best they knew how.  The so called wise people in court sent me into care of the local authority. I spent time at Chadswell assessment centre in Lichfield, and then went onto Riverside children’s home in Rocester near Uttoxeter. Both places after years of cover ups have had several people jailed for serious child abuse. Charges of rape + sexual assault + assault and all manner of smilar stuff have been proved.  At the time children and that’s what we were were crying out to be heard.  We were so often ignored.  Things were swept under the carpet.  The thing that hurts me the most is that I was deprived of time with my mom who died when I was so young. The state was taking and making decisions about children’s lives. About our futures & yet they left us at the mercy of perverts I can never ever forgive that. Bastards bastards bastards……………….

http://www.robbowker.co.uk/poemsaa.html

Infant Adoption – What They Knew and Didn’t Tell Us. 1943.


PSYCHOLOGY OF THE ADOPTED CHILD.

Clothier. F. MD. 1943.

Clothier says in her paper in Mental Hygiene (1943). “Every adopted child at some point in his development, has been deprived of this primitive relationship with his mother. This trauma and the severing of the individual from his racial antecedents lie at the core of what is peculiar to the psychology of the adopted child.

The adopted child presents all the complications in social and emotional development in the own child. But the ego of the adopted child, in addition to all the demands made upon it, is called upon to compensate for the wound left by the loss of the biological mother”.

The child who is placed with adoptive parents at or soon after birth misses the mutual and deeply satisfying mother and child relationship. The roots of which lie deep in the area of personality where the psychological and physiological are merged. Both for the child and the natural mother, that period is part of the biological sequence, and it is to be doubted whether the relationship of the child to it’s post partum mother, in its subtler effects, can be replaced by even the best of substitute mothers.

But those subtle effects lie so deeply buried in the personality that, in the light of our present knowledge, we cannot evaluate them.

Clothier says: “We do know more about the trauma that an older baby suffers when he is separated from his mother with whom his relationship is no longer parasitic, but toward whom he has developed active social strivings”.

For some children, and in some stages of development, the severing of a budding social relationship can cause irreparable harm. The childs willingness to sacrifice instinctive gratifications and infantile pleasures for the sake of a love relationship has proved a bitter disillusionment, and he may be reluctant to give himself into a love relationship again.

The child who is placed in infancy has the opportunity of passing through his oedipal development in relation to his adoptive parents without an interruption, that in the childs phantasy, may amount to the most severe of punishments.

Because of the love the baby has come to need to receive from his mother and to give to his mother, he accepts his first responsibility in life, namely toilet training. He gives up infantile sources of pleasure for the sake of his mother, who’s love he wants to hold and whom he wants to please.

The child who lacks the motivation of a growing social and emotional relationship with a highly valued love object, does not accept training in a spirit of co-operation. If he accepts it at all, it is likely to be in response to fear of the consequences of wetting and soiling. Many children use persistent wetting and soiling as a method of expressing their antagonism to a mother with whom they have not experienced an early, satisfying love relationship.

Brisley. (1939) points out that the illegitimate baby (and this applies to the prospective candidate for adoption) is under abnormal pressure to “be good”. This implies first being quiet and taking feeds well, and later, accepting toilet training at an early age. This emphasis Brisley suggests is a “contributing factor to the insecurity and feeling of aloneness which seems characteristic of the illegitimate child.”

Clothier goes on to say, “that every child, whether living with his parents or with foster parents, has a recourse to phantasy when he finds himself frustrated, threatened or incapable of dominating his environment. For the adopted child it is not a phantasy that these parents with whom he lives with are not his parents, it is reality.

For the adopted child, the second set of parents are obviously the unknown lost real parents. His normal ambivalence will make use of this reality situation to focus his love impulses on one set of parents and his hate impulses on another. He finds an easy escape from the frustrations inherent in his home education by assuming the attitude that these, his adoptive parents, are his bad and wicked persecutors, whereas his dimly remembered own or foster parents, from whom he was ‘stolen’ are represented in his phantasy as the good parents to whom he owes his love and allegiance”.

1960

FANTASIES AND BEHAVIOUR OF THE ADOPTED CHILD;

Marshall D.Schechter. M.D., Beverly Hills California.

In his paper on the Observations of Adopted Children.

In a series of cases seen by him the percentage of adopted children was 13.3 as compared with the national average of 0.134. This indicates a hundredfold increase of patients in this category compared with what could be expected in the general population.

Toussieng (April 1958) of the out patients and admissions service said that one third of all patients coming to the Menninger out patient clinic were adopted.

Schechter, goes on to say. The striking thing in most cases was that the feature of their adoptive status played a significant role in the underlying dynamics of the problem.

He observed in many of his case studies on adopted children symptoms relating to such things as fantasies and “acting out” regarding the real parents, i.e. their appearance, their names and killing and murder especially toward their real mother.

Observations also included outbursts toward the adoptive parents telling them they would not do as the parents say because they were not their real parents. He also goes on to say that adopted children suffer symptoms of depression, feelings of incompleteness, phobic fear of abandonment, anxiety, aloofness and distancing of them selves which made close relationships impossible.

Schechter also noted hyperactivity and unmanageability in children of a young age. He also observed,
particularly with one child, that it had relationships of the same quality with strangers as his parents, namely, superficial and dominated by a driving need to have his impulses satisfied immediately. The child could easily be comforted by a stranger as easily as by his mother.

In the behaviour of young adopted girls Schechter observed instances of such things as sex-play, exhibitionism, seductiveness and regression.

He also noted in cases of adopted boys, problems of lying, stealing, and lack of integration with others.

Schechter’s observations of the adoptive parents were that often the adoptive mothers had intense feelings of inadequacy regarding their womanly functions that contributed to an over protectiveness to the children. These feelings also served as a constant reminder of her barrenness, stimulating her need to tell the story of “the chosen one”.

Prior to adoption, some of these people had recognized emotional problems within themselves. Some had thought of the children as potential saviours of their marriage. Some felt that a child was essential to prove their masculinity.

Toussieng. (1958) commenting on the repetition of the story of adoption and of how “we picked you” suggests that the real parents did not want him and therefore were bad parents. Therefore, though the parents stress the wanting aspect they at the same time play the “abandonment theme”.

The belief of “I’m no good: because my parents gave me away because I was no good and I am going to prove them right” is not uncommon in adoptive children.

In his comments Schechter reports we could see how the idea of adoption had woven itself into the framework of the childs personality configuration. It played a role in symptom formation and object relationships. It certainly had an effect in later development, giving the stamp of antisocial behaviour and that of a paranoidal system.

He summarises by stating ” The patients in this paper do not have a fantasy about being adopted, they were adopted. Their daydream, which cannot be combated by denial, is the connection with their real parents. Who were they? What were they? Why did they give me up? Do I have any living relatives? What was my name, etc?

Clothier. (April;1943) states. A deep identification with our fore-bears as experienced originally in the mother-child relationship, gives us our most fundamental security. . . Every adopted child at some point in his development has been deprived of his primitive relationship with his mother. This trauma and the removal of the individual from his racial antecedent lie at the core of what is peculiar to the psychology of the adopted child.

Toussieng (1958) states; the adolescence of the adopted child seems to be a particularly difficult one because it is harder for adoptive adolescents to accept their rebellion against the adoptive parents, to give them up as love objects. Furthermore, I have now seen a number of cases in which children in adolescence start roaming around almost aimlessly, though some times they are seeking someone or some thing. They seem to be seeking the fantasised “good real parents”.

Benedek (1938) presents an important concept regarding the development of confidence based on
mother-child relationship. This is the area so sensitive in these adopted children and which can be found to under-lie so many of their disturbances.

1962

DISABILITIES IN ADOPTED CHILDREN AND ADOPTIVE PARENTS

Dr. Povl W. Toussieng. M.D.

Dr Toussieng was a child psychiatrist at The Menninger Clinic Topeka, Kansas.

Dr Toussieng suggests that adopted children seem more prone to emotional disturbances than non-adopted children; he concludes that their conflicts are caused by their adoptive parents unresolved resistance to parenthood.

He says that in spite of careful screening of adopted children and their prospective parents prior to adoption, a disproportionately large percentage of these children eventually come to psychiatric or other professional attention because of emotional, educational or social problems.

The fact that sixty one percent of the first and only child in an adopting family were particularly prone to disturbances suggested that they should look elsewhere than in the children themselves for the factors contributing to later disturbances. The children presented at the Childrens Service tended to present many severe difficulties.

Toussieng also acknowledges that severe emotional disturbances and personality disorders are
over-represented among adopted children and that they may have severe emotional difficulties that may never come to the attention of professionals.

He points out that on reaching adulthood some children become obsessed with finding their real mother because they had revealed a feeling of never having been really attached to their adoptive family and never had the feeling of real belonging.

Toussieng refers to Deutsh (1945) where she discusses the influences of unconscious attitudes and conflicts on the abilities of the adoptive mother to be motherly toward their adopted children. She believes that an adoptive mothers failure to develop motherliness is the major cause of later disturbances in the child. They (the mothers) view the adopted child as narcissistic injury, as evidence that they themselves are damaged. The child in trying to identify with such parents may well acquire shaky and defective introjects.

Toussieng summarises by stating “children who have been adopted at an early age and/or who have not been exposed to psychological traumatization before adoption seem to be more prone to emotional disturbances than non-adopted children.

1963

ADOPTED CHILDREN DISABILITIES.

Michael Humphrey and Christopher Ounsted.

Michael Humphrey, M.A. B.Sc Principal Clinical Psychologist. Warneford and Park Hospitals.

Christopher Ounsted. D.M.,D.C.H., D.P.M., Consultant-in Charge Park Hospital for Children.

In a control group of 41 early age adoptees they distinguished the following symptoms. Emotional reactions (tantrums, negativism, jealousy). Enuresis, anxiety, disturbed social behaviour, aggression, withdrawl, stealing, cruelty, destructiveness, lying and encopresis.

They were impressed with finding out that one in two children adopted late had been stealing as compared to one in four children adopted at an early age. The action appeared in several cases to be expressly directed at the adoptive mother, either from a sense of rejection (in some cases well founded) or as an appeal for more individual attention. Sometimes the money would be spent on presents for friends in the hope of gaining popularity. Some of these children have stolen compulsively over a long period with no sign of remorse.

They found the adopted children suffered from varying degrees of parental deprivation, neglect, parental rejection or at the opposite extreme, over-indulgence, mental or physical illness sufficient to impair the quality of parental love, and jealously of a sibling born before or too soon after the adoption.

1963.

FANTASY OF ADOPTED CHILDREN AND ADOPTIVE PARENTS.

Schechter.M. Carlson.P.V. Simmons. J.Q. and Work. H.H.

In a paper submitted to the Childrens Bureau, US Department of Health Aug 1963.

The factor of adoption played a consistently important role in the genesis and perpetuation of the given
symptom picture. Two major hypotheses were suggested for the higher incidence of psychological disturbances in the adoptee. Firstly the adoptee may intra-physically continue a split between good and bad in his infantile object relations, since in reality he has two sets of parents. Secondly, the adoptive parent is often confused in his or her role due to unconscious guilts and hostilities and tends to project this disturbance backward into the heredity of the child i.e. the natural parents.

Phipps(1953) mentioned the tendency of parents to speak about the heredity of the child as the major causative factor in behavioural difficulties.

Lemon E.M. (1959) referred to the difficulty that the adopted individual has in dealing with communication concerning his adopted status with a resulting tendency to weave factual material together with much fantasied material in his thoughts as he seeks his natural parents.

They went on to say that these patients perceived their adoptive parents as inadequate especially with the setting of limits and viewed their natural parents as their adequate set of parents.

Livermore J. B (1961) suggests that the adoptees have specific problems in identification, since the adoptive mother constantly reactivates primitive unconscious fears that her own insides have been destroyed.

They summarised by saying. “We feel that we have offered substantial evidence from many sources that the non-relative adopted child may be more prone to emotional difficulties”.

1967.

ADOPTED CHILDREN.

A statement from the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 1967.37 402. Mid-Fairfield Child Guidance Centre Norwalk Connecticut.

The number of adopted adolescent children who are referred to our centre and other centres is larger than their ratio in the general population. “We are impressed with the extent to which these children are pre-occupied with the theme of their adoption”.

They go on to talk about the similarity of the traits and attitudes in these children which they refer to as the “Adoption Syndrome”.

1970.

DISABILITIES OF ADOPTED CHILDREN.

Dr Christopher Ounsted, MA, DM, MRCP, DCH, DPM.

Dr Ounsted states that in the late fifties it had become apparent to him and his colleagues at the Park Street Hospital for Children that they were seeing an unexpectedly large number of adopted children. Many of the children owed their disabilities either to some inate handicap or to defects in the structure of their families, such as having parents who were psychotic, inadequate, psychopathic, defective, or in some other way not able to fulfil their parental roles adequately.

Ounsted noted that of the symptoms of adopted patients, compulsive theft was more significant.

1971.

ABUSE.

Henry Kemp. Archives of Diseases in Childhood (1971) states that some children may be more vulnerable to abuse than others. Among them are the hyperactive, the precocious, the premature, the stepchild and the adopted.

1974.

IDENTITY:

1974 Dr Triseliotis in his research paper on Identity and Adoption, gives examples of adoptees views on identity.

1st adoptee,
“I look in the mirror and cannot recognise myself”.

2nd adoptee,
“I feel there is something about adoption that gives you a feeling of insecurity as regards just
exactly who you are”.

3rd adoptee,
“I feel that I am only a half a person, the other half obscured by my adoption”.

4th adoptee,
“I never really felt I belonged. I feel empty and I find it difficult to make friends or be close to
people. I have been hovering on the edge of a break down”.

One of the main anxieties of adoptees is the fear of being different and somewhat set apart from the rest.

The adopted child has to gradually accept the loss of his natural parents and the “rejection” this implies. Yet he has to also accomodate a preferably positive image of the original set of parents and their genealogy in his developing self.

Children who are adopted into a different culture will still need to identify with aspects of their original heritage.

1975.

ABANDONMENT.

Bennett Olshaker, MD. In his paper “What shall We Tell the Kids”, he notes that the adopted person has to contend with the feeling that he was abandoned, but we can try to help him in a positive manner by portraying his natural parents in a positive manner. He goes on to say that some adoptive parents may feel that their childs’ parents were immoral for having a child out of wedlock. These sentiments create difficulties for the parents when the child has questions regarding sexual matters.

1976.

ADOPTED CHILDREN ADMITTED INTO RESIDENTIAL PSYCHIATRIC CARE.

Harper.J.; Williams. S. 1976.

This was an investigation over a period of five years from 1969-1974 into 22 adopted children admitted into the childrens unit at North Ryde Psychiatric Centre. Six were referred at age eleven and over, three were referred before their fifth birthday and the remaining thirteen fell between five and ten years and eleven months.

Symptoms in the children ranged from depression, aggressive acting out behaviour to stealing. In some
instances stealing was a desperate attempt to buy friendship since the stolen money was to buy sweets and toys for peers. In other instances it seemed to compensate for the loss of the real mother by acquisition of material goods. In all cases it could be seen as a cry for help.

In some instances admission to the unit signals the relinquishing of parental responsibility as evidenced by eight cases where the child was made a ward of the state and placed in a child welfare home. A summary of the various outcomes indicated that they on the whole were unsatisfactory with one third settling back into their adoptive families with a positive prognosis and two thirds demonstrating a breakdown or possible breakdown in the adoptions.

Family trauma and parental pathology was investigated since it was felt that the stress of adoption could not alone account for the severity of symptoms and outcomes in the children. In terms of family trauma one mother and one father suicided after a history of depressive illness, one set of adoptive parents were murdered, two fathers were killed in car accidents with the adoptive child present and three fathers were unusually violent and aggressive men.

In seven cases, the mothers had a history of psychiatric illness prior to the adoption, including one with a schizophrenic illness. In the case of the seven mothers and three fathers for whom a psychiatric diagnosis was made after the adoption, one can only speculate on the degree to which extra-familial stresses and internal pressures contributed toward this decompensation.

1980.

ADOPTED ADOLESCENTS.

Rickarby. G.A. Eagan. P. 1980.

Rickarby and Eagan say that in their and others studies, there has been consistent evidence of morbidity of various types in adopted adolescents. He states that adoptive families are four times more as likely as biological to seek help for their distress. Acting out, degrees of depression, identity crisis and special roles, (the bad one, the mad one, or the sick one) may constitute an adolescent’s expression of a families dysfunction.

With the added issues of adoption, adolescent development crises become more difficult and the concomitant distress and behaviour exaggerated. These situations include the adolescent who is unable to communicate to others his frightening or idealized fantasies about his biological parents and who cannot readily accept the identity expected of him in his adoptive family and the adopted adolescent who is struggling to cope in a family beset by marital conflict or mental illness.

Cultural fables may have a destructive aspect on the adopted adolescents development. One such fable is “the chosen child”. This is often a source of great anger to the child whose experience of his family has not been “good enough”. His anger is directed at the adoptive parents because these people “chose him”.

Another fable is that of “the poor child whose parents did not want him” and who was adopted by the bountiful parents to whom the child should be ever more grateful.

1985.

ADOPTIVE ANXIETY, RAGE AND GUILT.

Silverman. M.A. 1985. Discusses in his paper that when adoptive status is foisted upon a child, the child is encumbered with so many problems that he or she is at risk of developing a host of psychological problems. This is particularly so if the child learns of his adoption at an early age.

These can be unhappiness, separation problems, difficulty knowing and learning, aggressive fantasies and acts, preoccupation with knives and other weapons, and his feelings of being deprived and robbed.

Adoptive status tends to affect multiple aspects of the developing personality. It interferes with the childs sense of security, the modulation of and channelling of the childs aggression, the development and resolution of the Oedipus complex, super-ego formation, and identity formation.

To lose a parent early in life, especially when there is a felt element of cruel rejection and desertion, as there tends to be when a child is told of adoption while still in the throes of “sadistic-anal” ambivalence and the hostile-dependent struggles of the reproachment crisis of separation-individuation, mobilizes in tense fear and rage. The rage at the abandoning parents is in part directed toward the adoptive parents.

In part the rage is turned back on the self, contributing to the fantasy that the child was abandoned by the original parents because he or she was bad, troublesome, greedy, and destructive.

Silverman goes on to say “nearly every adopted child or adult I have treated sooner or later has revealed the fantasy that the reason for the adoption was the biological mother died in childbirth, which tends to be depicted as a tearing, ripping, bloody, murderous affair in which the baby gains life by taking the life of the mother”.

The adopted child not only needs to learn about pregnancy and childbirth to solve the mysteries of his or her origins, but also needs to find out if he or she is really a murderer! Adopted children often entertain the fantasy that the original father too has died.

1986.

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER IN ADOPTEES.

Wilson. : Green. : Soth. : 1986. Report that many adopted adolescent patients in their hospital (10 out of 21) have received a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. This diagnosis, made official in the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edition 1980), includes the following symptoms: impulsivity or unpredictability in areas that are potentially self damaging, a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships with idealization, devaluation and manipulation, inappropriate intense anger.

Identity disturbance was manifested by uncertainty about several issues relating to identity, intolerence of being alone, affective instability, physically self damaging acts, and chronic feelings of boredom and emptyness. It is theorised that this disorder arose because of deficits in early parenting experiences which did not enable the child to develop a core identity, so they didnt feel part of a fused dyad, which explains their fear of abandonment and intolerence of being alone.

1988.

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN ADOPTEES. ADOPTED CHILD SYNDROME.

Kirshner.D. Nagel.L. 1988.

Is there a distinct pattern of presenting behaviours and symptoms among adopted children and adolescents referred for psychotherapy? Some clinicians and clinical researchers whose day to day observations strongly suggest that such a pattern does, in fact exist. The senior author has observed extreme provocative, aggressive, antisocial, and delinquent conduct much more consistently among adoptees than their non-adopted counterparts.

Behind the recurrent behavioural and personality patterns there have emerged emotional and psychodynamic issues specifically linked to adoption.

Schecter, Carlson, Simmons, & Work (1964) looked at adopted and non-adopted children in a psychiatric setting and found a much greater occurrence of overt destructive acts and sexual acting-out among adoptees. Menlove (1965) used a similar sample and found significantly more aggressive symptomatology among adoptees. Although several predicted differences were significant, adoptees had significantly more hyperactivity, hostility, and negativism, and significantly more of them had passive-aggressive personalities.

What then is the adopted child syndrome? On the behaviourial level, it it is an antisocial pattern that usually includes pathological lying, stealing, and manipulativeness. Fire setting is sometimes seen and promiscuous behaviour is common.

Typically, the child seeks out delinquent, antisocial children or adults often of a lower economic class than the adoptive family. Provocative, disruptive behaviour is directed toward authority figures, notably teachers and parents. The child often threatens to run away, and in many cases repeatedly does so.

Truancy is common, as well as academic under-achievement and, in many cases there are significant learning problems. There is a typically shallow quality to the attachment formed by the child, and a general lack of meaningful relationships. The child reports feeling “different” and “empty”.

Yet the parents of most children with the Adopted Child Syndrome exhibit a pattern of tension and denial surrounding the issue of adoption. It soon becomes apparent however, that communication about adoption is not simply absent; much worse, the parents are tacitly communicating a message that the topic is dangerous and taboo.

The child, sensing his parents’ insecurity and anxiety, is left to imagine what terrible truths they might be hiding. He feels an ominous pressure against voicing his feelings and curiosity. He senses that his adoptive parents would feel his interest in his birth parents was disloyal. He not only experiences a dread of the truth but also the stifling of his normal curiosity.

1988.

IDENTITY IN ADOPTEES.

Treadwell Penny, talks about Dr F.H. Stone, former consultant in child psychiatry at the Royal Hospital for sick children in Glasgow. Writing about the problems of identity experienced in adolescence by adopted children,
Stone says:

“When there are emotional problems, really basic problems connected with identification, something is likely to happen. Instead of the young person playing roles, he may very actively take on a particular favoured role, which he proceeds to live, and this role tends often to be the least in favour with the parents or other adults who care for this young person.

And so we see again and again in our clinics the parents of teenagers who come to us in utter
despair and say `Not only are we worried about the child, but the very things we have always been most afraid of: thats what he is doing’. If it was drugs then it was drugs; if it was promiscuity it was promiscuity; if it was failure to learn then it was failure to learn”.

Psychologist Erick Erickson. . . calls this a “negative identity”. One can readily appreciate the relevance of this to the adoptive situation, because here we see the danger, in the confusion or embarrassment of explaining to the child about the natural mother or father, of denigrating them either as people who abandoned him, who did not care for him, or who had certain attributes of personality or behaviour. The danger here is that this will backlash, and later on, especially in adolescence, this is precisely the mode of behaviour which the child adopts in his “negative identity”.

1988.

WHY DO ADOPTEES SEARCH?

Robert.S. Andersen asks; “What then about the question as to why the adoptees are searching? This question can be paraphrased thus: “Why are you interested in your mother, your father, your sisters, brothers, grandparents, cousins, nieces, nephews, ancestry, history, aptitudes, liabilities – in short why are you interested in you?”

This is the tragedy, that adoptees more often than not do not feel justified in living life as it is, but have to come out with socially acceptable excuses to justify their interest, needs, and their lives.

They cannot be honest with themselves or others because the conflictual forces, external if in the form of “how could you do this to your adoptive parents”, or internal if in the form of “she gave me up and I do not want to give her the satisfaction of knowing that it matters”, interfere with the living of life from their own original position.

Searching, is not simply an intellectual activity for the adoptee. There is an emotional component as well, and it is my belief that this emotional component is the most important part. If one genuinely wonders why adoptees search, I think that a comprehensive answer must include the following: On one level, adoptees search so they might see, touch, and talk to their biological mother – the search is an effort to make contact with one’s biological family. On a different level (the bottom line), it is something more than this. I think that the search is most fundamentally, an expression of the wish to undo the trauma of separation.

Adoptees either hope (unrealistically, but not necessarily unexpectantly) to relive the life that was lost at the time of the separation, or hope (more realistically) to heal the wound caused by the separation, and therefore provide a more solid base for their lives.

1991.

SEVEN CORE ISSUES OF ADOPTION.

Kaplan.S.; Silverstein. D.:

1.Loss: Adoption is created through loss. Without loss there can be no adoption.

2.Rejection: One way people deal with loss is to figure out what they did was wrong so they can keep from having other losses. In doing this, people may conclude they suffered losses because they were unworthy of having whatever was lost. As a result they feel they were rejected.

3.Guilt and shame: When people personalize a loss to the extent that they feel there is something
intrinsically wrong with themselves that caused the loss, they often feel guilt that they did something wrong or feel shame that others may know. (Silverstein).

4.Grief: Because adoption is seen as a problem solving event in which everyone gains, rather than an event in which loss is integral, it is difficult for adoptees, adoptive parents, and birthparents to grieve. There are no rituals to bury unborn children, roles, dead dreams and disconnected families.

5.Identity: A person’s identity is derived from who he is and what he is not. Adoption threatens a persons knowing of who he is, where he came from, and where he is going.

6.Intimacy: People who are confused about their identity have difficulty getting close to anyone, Kaplan says. And people who have had significant loss in their lives may fear getting close to others because of the risk of experiencing loss again.

7.Control: All those involved with adoption have been “forced to give up control” said Silverstein. Adoption is a second choice. There is a crisis who’s resolution is adoption.

1991.

THE BABY.

Unlike the adoptive mother the baby has experienced pregnancy. The child-in-the-womb has built up a a rhythmical biological bond with the woman who will not be his mother. Prenatal psychologists believe the adopted baby has to learn to separate from the mother he has known in-utro and form an attachment to the new set of parents. Some adoptive parents believe this too.

They feel that the newborn baby has already had intimate prenatal and birth experiences and possible
memories from which they are excluded. These parents interpret the babies cries or discomfort as pining for the birthmother’s smell, her touch, the sound of her voice or naturally synchronized rhythmicity. Such hypersensitivity and fear of rejection by the the baby may reflect the adopting parents own unconfessed preferences for a “natural child” of their own.

Arrival of an adopted baby revives the sense of having “stolen” a child they were not entitled to have. In addition, fantasies about the babies unknown conceptual and genetic history contribute to difficulties in falling in love with the little stranger who is to be part of their lives.

1991.

THE PRIMAL WOUND.

Verrier Nancy, 1991, believes that during gestation a mother becomes uniquely sensitised to her baby. Donald Winnicot called this phenomenon, primary maternal preoccupation. He believed that toward the end of pregnancy, the mother develops a state of heightened sensitivity, which provides a setting for the infants constitution to begin to make itself evident, for the developmental tendencies to start to unfold and for the infant to experience spontaneous movement.

He stressed the mother alone knows what the baby could be feeling and what he needs, because everyone else is outside his experience.

The mothers hormonal, physiological, constitutional and emotional preparation provides the child with a security, which no one else can. There is a natural flow from the in-utro experience of the baby safely confined in the womb to that of the baby secure within the mothers arms, to the wanderings of the toddler who is secure in the mothers proximity to her. This security provides the child with a sense of rightness and wholeness of self.

For these babies and their mother, relinquishment and adoption are not concepts, they are experiences they can never fully recover from. A child can certainly attach to another care giver, but rather than a secure, serene feeling of oneness, the attachment is one in which the adoptive relationship may be what Bowlby has referred to as anxious attachment.

He noted that “provided there is one particular mother figure to who he can relate and who mothers him lovingly, he will in time take to and treat her as though she were almost his mother. That “almost” is the feeling expressed by the adoptive mothers who feel as if they had accepted the infant but the infant had not quite accepted them as mother.

More Adoption ArticlesAdoption Crossroads HomePage

http://www.adoptioncrossroads.org/what_they_knew_&_didn’t_tell_us.html

CONTACT BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN LONG-TERM CARE: THE UNRESOLVED DISPUTE JUDITH MASSON*

CONTACT BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN LONG-TERM CARE: THE UNRESOLVED DISPUTE

JUDITH MASSON*

* Lecturer in Law, University of Leicester, Leicester LEI 7RH, England.

This article describes the development of the law and social work practice relating to access to children in care in England and Wales and examines the different approaches to such access by looking at the attitudes of social workers, guardians ad litem and the judiciary. The particular focus is contact betweenchildren who are unlikely to return to the natural family and their parents. Using Fox’s analysis of ideologies in child care the author concludes that ‘the-society-as-parent protagonists’ do not value contact where rehabilitation is unlikely and that such views were partly reflected in the Department of Health and Social Security’s Code of Practice on Access. The author then examines the research literature on success of fostering and well-being of children in care and concludes that there is little evidence to support a negative approach to access. Indeed, the most recent studies stress the poor consequences of failing to maintain contact between children in care and their families. The Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 gave parents who have had their access to children in care terminated a right to have this decision reviewed by a magistrates’ court. The court normally appoints a guardian ad litem who will investigate the case and make a recommendation to the court. In a small study of guardians, the author found that approximately half took the narrow approach to access and would not support it where there was no chance of rehabilitation. A study of reported access cases indicates that judges also took the narrow approach to access to children in care but not in cases following relationship breakdown. The author explains that this reflects the judge’s own interpretation of adoption law and also their support of local authority action. The author concludes that the changes introduced by the Children Act 1989 will make only a slight difference, for two reasons. First, there is still little belief that continuing contact is in the child’s best interests. Second, the security which children who cannot be rehabilitated are thought to need can only be provided by adoption, which under English Law almost always requires the severance of links with the natural family.

 http://lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/97

How To Kidnap A Child by The Barbaric Association of Social Workers

Congratulations! You have embarked on a great adventure. Kidnapping a child is probably unlike anything you have done before. If you are a first-time kidnapper you may be hesitant; perhaps you have lingering scruples. It is true you will probably do irreparable harm to the child. Children in care more often become involved in drugs, alcohol, and crime, become pregnant as teenagers, perform poorly in school, join gangs, and commit suicide.
But look at the advantages! You can be sure of reaching your targets and making lots of money. YOU call the shots! What could be more rewarding? And a little extra cash each month never hurts, eh?
Few people realize how easy abduction is. It happens 1,000 times a day, mostly by social workers! So if you’re thinking, “I could never get away with it,” wake up! Millions do. In fact many only realize the possibility when they become victims. Then they invariably say, “If only I had known how easy it is I would have done it sooner!” So don’t be caught off guard. Read on, and discover the exciting world of child kidnapping and extortion.
If you are a social worker the best time to snatch is soon after your victims have a new child or pregnancy. Once you have what you want, you will realize that the parents are no longer necessary .
A social worker should consider snatching as soon as they can. Once you have the child, you have pretty much won the game. You will always be at an advantage, who will believe the parents in a family court ?. . But hey, you have the kid. you wont be held accountable, and the family courts will protect you 100 %.
Surprise is crucial for an elegant abduction. Wait until the other parent is away, has just that minute given birth. Don’t worry about the child’s effects, there is funding for them.  The more you children you snatch , the better  your targets and cash flow. You also want to achieve the maximum emotional devastation the parents. Like the terrorist, you want to impress with how swift, sudden, and unpredictable your strike can be.
kidnapping the child without a court order  is illegal, but the police will turn a blind eye. The police will make the case a low priority, and if you are a social worker you will never be prosecuted. In the meantime claim to have established a “stable routine” and that returning the child (or even visits) would be “disruptive.” Anything that keeps the child in your possession and away from their parents works to your advantage.
Find superficial ways to appear cooperative. Inform the parents of your decisions (after you have made them). At the same time avoid real cooperation. The judge will conclude that the parents “wont co-operate” and leave you in charge. Since it is standard piety that parents should  “cooperate,” the easiest way to sabotage them reclaiming the child is to be as uncooperative as possible.
Go to court right away. The more aggressive you are with litigation the more it will appear you have some valid grievance. The judge and lawyers  will be grateful for the business you create. Despite professions of heavy caseloads, courts are under pressure to channel money to lawyers, whose bar associations appoint and promote judges. File a motion for forced adoption, and get a restraining order to keep the parents  from seeing their children. (A nice touch is to say they are planning to “kidnap” them or cause them emotional harm.) Or have them restricted to supervised visitation.
Going to court is also a great opportunity to curtail anything you dislike about the parents. If you think they may go to the press, get an injunction against them discussing it. Do they complain or report you ? Getting a court order is easier than you think.
False allegations of physical. sexual and emotional harm  are also helpful. Accusing a parent of  abusing their own children is very easy and can be satisfying for its own sake.
Don’t worry about proving the charges. An experienced judge will recognize trumped-up allegations. This is not important, since no one will ever blame the judge for being “better safe than sorry,” and accusations create business for his cronies. You yourself will never have to answer for false charges. The investigation also buys time during which you can further claim to be establishing a routine while keeping the parents at a distance and programming the children against them.
Abuse accusations are also marvelously self-fulfilling. What more logical way to provoke a parent to lash out than to take away their children? Parents naturally become violent when someone interferes with their children. This is what parents are for. The more you can torment them with the ruin of their family, home, livelihood, savings, and sanity, the more likely that they will self-destruct, thus demonstrating their unfitness.
Get the children themselves involved. Children are easily convinced they have been abused. Once the suggestion is planted, any affection from their parents will elicit a negative reaction, making your suggestion self-fulfilling in the child’s mind.
Dripping poison into the hearts of their children can be gratifying, and it is a joy to watch the darlings absorb your hostility. Young children can be filled with venom fairly easily just by telling them how bad their parents are as frequently as possible.
Older children present more of a challenge. They may have fond memories of the love and fun they once experienced with them. These need to be expunged or at least tainted. Try little tricks like saying, “Today you will be seeing your parents, but don’t worry, it won’t last long.” Worry aloud about the  parent’s competence to care for the child or what unpleasant or dangerous experience may be in store during the child’s visit. Sign the child up for organized activities that conflict with the parents visits. Or promise fun things, like a trip to Disneyland, which then must be “cancelled” to visit their parents.
You will soon discover how neatly your techniques reinforce one another. For example, marginalizing the parents and alienating the child become perfect complements merely by suggesting that the parents are absent because they  do not love them. What could be more logical in their sweet little minds!
And what works with children is also effective with judges. The more you can make the children hate their parents the easier you make it to get the forced adoption or the care order.
Remember too, this guide is no substitute for a good lawyer, since nothing is more satisfying than watching a hired goon beat up the child’s parents in a courtroom.
And now you can do what you like! You can warehouse the kids to paedophiles (or whatever).

The War of Attrition against Parents ( this is what is happening HERE and NOW )

The War of Attrition against Parents
How it Works
Child Trafficking is made possible, mostly as a result of the following procedures:
·        A process of selection.
·        Allegations against the parents mostly:
o       Allegations that either the parents or the child or all parties have psychiatric problems.
o       Allegations of mistreatment or abuse of the children.
o       Allegations of parental incompetence.
o       Allegations of neglect.
·        “Expert Evidence” on the family circumstances can easily be produced.
·        Some form of judicial procedure.
·        Inducement of financial hardship.
·        Induced psychiatric problems
·        Any Combination of the above measures.
The Selection
In 19th Century Britain, it was largely the economic factors which gave rise to child trafficking. Children were forced into workhouses or pauper orphanages. From there,  assuming that they had reached the required ages and were healthy enough,  they were sold to industry.
The selection process in 21stCentury Germany is based on conspicuousness: Anything which the Youth Organization can latch onto is part of the process: It may start with an application for assistance from a mother with a large family, a school report, a child with bruises or anything similar.
A system of checking for child maltreatment or abuse was introduced in Germany earlier this year and consists of compulsory periodic medical tests on all children up to a certain age. One might think that this would largely protect also the parents from the allegations of the local Youth Service. However, looking at the list of known measures available to German authorities under “How it Works”, this would only solve a small part of the problem.
The Allegations against the Parents
In 19th Century Britain, it was not necessary to make allegations against the parents, because there was a ready source of labor already in the institutions. The only theoretically possible allegation against the parents would have been, that they were poor.
In 21st Century Germany, it is necessary to make allegations against the parents. Anything in the list, which would put their fitness to raise children in doubt, will do. Most Youth Services produce vague allegations, wild suppositions or concocted lies, which are subsequently used to discredit the parents. Such “evidence” is all accepted by the family courts –  even if they know that the Youth Workers are perjuring themselves.
Expert Evidence
In 19th Century Britain there was a contractual examination of the candidate child at the time of sale, to establish his or her fitness for hard labor. If the child met with an industrial accident or died, there were plenty more replacements available.
In 21st Century Germany, it is usually necessary to recruit a specialist from the “usual sources” and ask him or her to produce the “right kind” of report. The usual sources will be the structures surrounding the Youth Service. The specialist will, in all but exceptional cases, be a psychologist or a psychiatrist.
The competence of these experts can be simply determined.  A questionnaire ( F2010P [4] ) was created, containing simple questions ranging from the important “did the specialist understand the tasking ?” to the trivial such as “did the specialist number the pages of the report ?”.  The analysis does not make the mistake of including specialist topics in the questionnaire, which would give rise to discussions. The requirements are, that the specialist clearly declares the state of the art, the methods applied and the reference works used for his or her report.
The additional question “was the report credible or not ?” has to be answered by aggregating the answers to the important questions. This does not answer the question “was the report right or wrong ?”. It could be that asking a specialist, who had written a muddled report, to repeat his work would produce a satisfactory conclusion. The courts in Germany are apparently not in a position to exercise this supervisory task. A vast accumulation of mistakes in the report would, in any case, preclude this. The other important question is “would it be possible to task a counter-expertise on the basis of the report, as it stands ?” is a “make or break” for the specialist report. Seven cases, in which the care of children is a topic, were analysed and the results plotted
In one case ( G04 ) there was a surpise score of 95% of the total points awarded.  This was a psychiatric report from the University Clinic of Tübingen ( Prof. Günter Klosinski and Dr. M. Clauß)  and it was all the more surprising because it is the best report seen in 6 years from any branch. It is hardly surprising that this report could be classified as “Credible”.  In the other six cases, the news was not so good, however: they exhibited most of the defects of all expert reports in Germany. One can only describe the standard of workmanship as utterly appalling. None of the reports ( G01-G07 ) with the exception of G04 could be classified as in any way credible. Furthermore, with the maximum score of 20% there is every reason to also gravely doubt the standards of specialist workmanship.
The judicial Procedure
The justice system in Germany has grave problems dating back to at least 1924. It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss all its defects – just enough to show it up as a flawed system.  A major credibility deficit is caused by the lack of separation of the judicative and the executive in Germany.
Judiciaries for the higher courts are chosen by political quotas. The vast majority of these judiciaries are card-carrying members of the political parties and many take part in active politics.  Active pursuance of commercial interests over and above the usual publication royalties is allowed, even encouraged. Poignant is the fact that Youth Committees boast a high proportion of court judges in their membership.  In short, it is a system just begging to be corrupted. For just a fraction of the transgressions a judiciary in Ireland or Britain would face instant dismissal.
On 14.10.2004 the Constitutional Court abrogated the Treaty Article covering the binding nature of the decisions of the  European Court of Human Rights [5]. Whilst German Judiciaries have never observed the Convention in practice, other than by accident, this declaration will make it easier to press for sanctions against Germany and to isolate her as a renegade state.
None of the reports could be classified as “Credible”. In all cases there was no reference to any lists of experts, so that it was not clear how or why (what qualifications and experience were needed) the expert was selected. In general no deadline for the delivery of the report was given. Only vague references or none at all to the regulations to be applied to the report were made. There were no supervisory check-marks laid down and in particular there were no acceptance tests defined. In all it is only possible to say that German judiciaries do not know how to task expert evidence. ( It is ironic that the same breed of people are sitting in judgement on contractual matters ).
It appears that the main aim of the exercise is to provide alibis for the court and for the Youth Services. The reports themselves, except for G04, bear all the hallmarks of  “desired result” expert evidence.
Apart form these pieces of expert evidence, the lack of professional competence is  also evident in the court judgements. (At present an evaluation scheme for court judgements is under development) At present, it can be said these court documents in Germany are mostly vague and lacking in the essential formalities. A common defect in civil cases is the apparent absence of an application, which would be essential to constitute a court at all. For criminal cases such student mistakes as the statement “The police thought … “ are very common. Evidence is introduced in the judgements, without any indication as where it came from. If there are cross-references, they are not summarized, so that a file can disappear at a later date ( and they frequently do) and nobody will be able to reconstruct the reasoning behind the judgement. German judiciaries as a general rule do not know the difference between facts, rationale and deduction. They lump everything together under the heading “Gründe” (grounds). The Work Quality seems to improve with increased notoriety of the accused. Ironically, therefore, top terrorists are more likely to receive a fair hearing ( as fair as can be in Germany, with her flawed Rules of Procedure ) than any normal person.
Anyone thinking that there must be national laws against perversion of justice is right: there are such laws. However, these are hardly ever applied, so that perversion of justice is  the perfect crime in Germany.
The Inducement of Financial Hardship
In 19th Century Britain, it was not necessary to artificially induce financial hardship on the parents to get their children, because poverty was sufficiently widespread for this purpose. In 21st Century Germany this is not the case, so a war of attrition has to be conducted against the selected parents, so that their children can be taken away from them.
The use of financial pressure as a weapon is well known (LLAMS-Model). This weapon has been systematically applied against the Himmel Family, living in Kornwestheim ( Baden-Württemberg, S. Germany )  for 13 years to try to get their son and daughter away from them. Rolf Himmel is an Undertaker and Regina Himmel is a part-time administrative assistant, who at the moment is not working because of the necessity to take defensive measures against the Youth Organization. They adopted the children (twins) in Poland in July 1994 at the age of two, and gave them an excellent home, with all the attention that they needed.
Although the Youth Office had accused the parents of an infringement of German adoption procedures, the adoption had been perfectly legal under polish law. Immediately on the couple’s return to Germany with the children, the Youth Office in Ludwigsburg accused the couple of buying the children. The purchase of children, may well be one of the “customs” in the structures around the Youth Offices of Germany but certainly not in a regular polish home for children, where the adoption had taken place. The Youth Office subsequently tried to allocate the children to another German family through the polish courts and finally tried to annul the adoption through the Polish High Court. They failed on both counts, but not before the Himmel family had paid a lot of money for polish attorneys for the legal battle.  In particular, on their own initiative, they obtained certificates from doctors,  psychiatrists and psychologists to counter the untruthful inputs from the District Administration in Ludwigsburg to the polish courts.
The District Administration Ludwigsburg has since taken Rolf and Regina Himmel through the whole gamut of persecution listed under “How it Works”.  Because of this, they have been forced into the permanent defensive. They have learned the major behaviour patterns of the Youth Service. For example, as soon as a child injures itself, be it in the school or in the home, they obtain an independent medical certificate to prove that they did not mistreat the child. Hardly a day goes by without some form of threat from the Youth Service. This of course has an economic effect on the parents, because while they are being kept busy by the District Administration in Ludwigsburg there is a net loss of working hours.
Sandra developed a school phobia and started running away from school. The District Administration used this golden opportunity and committed her to the closed section of the child psychiatry of the St. Lucas Clinic in the Catholic Liebenau Trust ( see below ). She was transferred after three months in June 2007 to the Evangelical Children’s home in Herzogsägmühle, from where she escaped ( she has not yet, at the time of writing, been found). The District Administration in Ludwigsburg, which now has the custody of Sandra, are now taking action to deduct a proportion of the costs of this incarceration (€4.000 ) from Rolf Himmel’s salary as an undertaker. He will not  be able to withstand that kind of economic squeezing.
Allegations of Parental Incompetence
Parental incompetence was certainly not a factor in 19th Century Britain for child trafficking. Poverty saw to that. In 21st Century Germany however, it is easy to allege – and just as easy for German courts not to ask what is behind the allegations. Gossip is always right for a hearing in Germany – if it comes from the ‘right’ side.
On the subject of incompetence, it should be borne in mind that the campaign against the Haase Family started with an expert evidence report. This report was also evaluated ( Fig. 2 – G05). It had the appearance of a good report at first sight, but on closer examination it was found to be a prefabricated cutting and pasting exercise, in which nothing fitted together. There was no adequate explanation of the methods used. There is an unnumbered bibliography for example, which is largely unused in the report and where it is cross-referenced, it is not clear why. There is mention of a questionnaire which was supposed to have been completed and signed by the mother. However, the specialist refers to it occasionally but did not include it in the report. The mother denies ever filling in such a questionnaire.  The fact that the specialist did not include the questionnaire in the report would tend to confirm this. It was only possible to award 20% of the marks to this report, making it the “best of the bad ones”. Because there were so many mistakes and omissions, it was not possible to classify the report as in any way “Credible”.
It is clear, also from the results of the other reports that, save for one case, the specialists were all massively incompetent. That these so-called experts should be assessing the parents’ competence just beggars belief. These reports also indicate what degree of competence is prevalent in the courts.
Induced psychiatric Problems
This section should not be confused with the entry in the list of allegations. This section is a measure of the psychological terror perpetrated against parents, in the hope that they will become psychiatric cases or commit suicide.
In 19th century there was certainly the same anomaly, some of it may have been deliberate and some of it caused by poverty.
In 1805 when Samuel Davy was seven years of age he was sent from the workhouse in Southwark in London to Mr. Watson’s Mill at Penny Dam near Preston. Later his brother was also sent to work in a mill. The parents did not know where Samuel and his brother were. The loss of her children, so preyed on the mind of Samuel’s mother that it brought on insanity, and she died in a state of madness.
This unfortunate woman must have felt bad enough but in 21st Century Germany they do the job much more thoroughly.
The Haase Family:
As Cornelia Haase was burying her daughter Lisa in January this year she said to SAM Television “I feel as though I am in a deep black hole” and explained how she felt. The Youth Office used this as an opportunity to taunt her with a renewed psychological attack. They wrote to the family court  saying,
“The psychic condition of Mrs. Haase gives rise to concern. It raises questions about her ability to be able to care adequately for her three daughters”
It should be said that Germany was roundly condemned by the European Court of Human Rights for its illegal actions against the Haase Family and was ordered to return the children. Of the seven children taken into care on the basis of an amateurish and highly defective report, only two have been returned. One has died.
The Himmel Family:
The Himmel Family was not in principle treated any differently: In the presence of a witness, they were told by the District Administration Office that they would never see their daughter again. In the closed section of the Catholic St. Lucas Clinic daughter Sandra was forcibly pumped with psycho drugs and locked up for 5 hours a day. At the Evangelical children’s home in Herzogsägmühle Sandra was told that she would never return home again and that her parents would give her up. All the abuses against the Himmel Family cannot be discussed here but a separate report has gone to some non-German members of the European Parliament.
Combinations of Measures
The Haase Family:
It is not necessary for the authorities to select just any one  measure from “How it works”, they can use any combination of measures as described in the LLAMS-Model up to a Total Sociological Attack (TSA).
The Haase Family lost 7 of their children in 2002 to the whims of a totally incompetent Youth Office and based on a thoroughly  amateurish expert evidence report ( Fig. 2 – G05). One of the children was confiscated at the hospital soon after birth.  It stands to reason that any court capable of accepting such  expert evidence quality, also puts the competence of its judiciaries and all the higher instances, that were called up, into question.
The perversions stretched to telling one of the trafficked children, that the parents were dead. This surpasses even what the Evangelical Children’s Home at Herzogsägmühle  told Sandra Himmel, i.e. that she would never return home and that her parents would abandon her.
The war of attrition against the Haase Family is perhaps the worst case of its kind in Germany, if not the whole of Europe. To go into all the details of this piece of savagery would be outside the scope of this paper (there is, however, much material on the Internet, in German [6] )  It would nevertheless be appropriate to look at an invoice for €1.423,26 which the Haase Family received from the City of Münster. That is a lot of money for a family in their situation.
Fig. 6. The Bill for Daughter Lisa’s Funeral sent to Cornelia Haase by the City of Münster, although she did not have custody of the child. Picture by courtesy of SAM the television channel.
Lisa took the break up of her family by the Youth Service hard followed by three years as the inmate of a children’s home, had left their mark. Lisa died in December 2006, they say of an acute Lung infection. However, the family doctor, with some logic, does not believe this. She had previously made two suicide attempts.
There are gruesome historical parallels to this, as reflected in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 The Bill for the Execution of Journalist Erich Knauf which was sent to his Widow immediately afterwards. His ‘Crime’ had been to crack Hitler-Jokes in an Air-Raid Shelter.
The two invoices ( Figs 6 & 7 ) are separated in time by 63 years. The reader is left to contemplate the depths of barbarism to which the German official mentality is prepared to sink. This mentality does not reflect the spirit of the World Cup 2006, it is rather one of many Monsters that outlived the 1000 year Reich, and is still on the rampage.
Digressing slightly on the subject of Hitler Jokes:  German officials still protect themselves from criticism, publicity and insult by applying their infantile laws against insult and defamation – despite OSCE demands for their abolition. Not only is Germany retaining these ridiculous laws from the age of the monocle and duelling, she is, with approaching 180.000 cases per year, statistically at the top of Europe. The figure represents nearly 20% of all criminal cases. This fact, together with the numerous side jobs of German judiciaries, indicates drastic underemployment in the courts at the cost of the taxpayer.
Human Rights: the International Repercussions
Some Statistics
It is clear that Germany is a renegade state, which does not accept or observe the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Her abrogation of the article in the treaty is official confirmation of this. The fact that she violates human rights in an exceptionally grave way is illustrated not only in this paper but also in the following statistics:
Fig 8. The Human Rights Statistics
Although Germany does not publish any statistics on  her human rights violations – not surprisingly –  some of these have been measured by the NGOs [7]. The offenses against Art. 6 of the convention on human rights have been  recorded in a data base. Because every process , that we have seen,  contains systematic violations of human rights, it was decided to produce a plot of the ‘pollution’ of each hearing by offenses against Article 6, otherwise there would just be a saturation of the data.  Not altogether surprising is that offenses against Art 6-1 ( fair hearing etc. ) occur most frequently. Whilst it would be appropriate  to measure this ‘pollution’ on an annual basis –  to show trends, leading hopefully to zero in a few years -, there is not yet  enough data to support this. At present there are only about 70 cases recorded.
It can be assumed the human rights violations would have been massive in 19th  Century Britain, there is, however, no sensible way of measuring them.
It is clear that state, which thumbs its nose at the convention is no partner for the EU. For that reason we are producing a basis for pressing for EU- and OSCE-Sanctions against Germany e.g. exclusion from  international human rights councils. The decisions of the family courts will need to have international restrictions imposed on their international acceptance, because such  decisions can only be classed as “unsafe and unsound”.
The Conclusion
Whether the German Youth Service backed up by the Justice actually does the right thing on occasions is unknown. That is the classic problem of the disingenuous – Nobody will believe them, even on the occasions when they are telling the truth. The huge defects in the system and the its eminent lack of professional competence suggest that this would otherwise be a matter of pure chance.
It is clear that Germany is, as far as the care of children goes, comparable with Britain in the latter half of Industrial Revolution. In other words there is a progress deficit of about 170 – 200 years in the attitudes to parents and their children in Germany. The primeval behaviour of the Youth Organizations would mean that there is an additional excursion backwards well beyond the 170-200 year point.  There are some very sick people in the Youth Offices, and there are quite a lot of social misfits who, thanks both to the lack of supervision in Germany and the lack of training, do not get discovered   On this point, the “viciousness factor”, the comparison with 19th Century Britain is redundant. In Britain of the 19th Century, there existed at least economic factors as an excuse for the excesses.
Although on an international basis, corruptibility would not necessarily mean that corruption is present in the system. In Germany, however, it must be assumed that there is a maximum of corruption present, mainly because the state organizations have an extraordinarily high corruptibility factor, due to the universal lack of supervision and the eminent lack of judicial independence in a broken-down justice system.
The international acceptance of the decisions of Germany’s  family  courts will have to be suspended until such time as Germany can guarantee human rights, proper supervision of departments, proper training of specialists as well as  judicial independence in her courts.
Peter Briody
“institut voigt”
18.11.2007
SkyPe:  “institutvoigt”
Tel:   07545 941980
Fax:  07545 941981
email: briody@eucars.de
Public key: Auf Anfrage

The War of Attrition against Parents
How it Works
Child Trafficking is made possible, mostly as a result of the following procedures: ·        A process of selection.·        Allegations against the parents mostly:o       Allegations that either the parents or the child or all parties have psychiatric problems.o       Allegations of mistreatment or abuse of the children.o       Allegations of parental incompetence.o       Allegations of neglect.·        “Expert Evidence” on the family circumstances can easily be produced.·        Some form of judicial procedure.·        Inducement of financial hardship.·        Induced psychiatric problems·        Any Combination of the above measures. The Selection
In 19th Century Britain, it was largely the economic factors which gave rise to child trafficking. Children were forced into workhouses or pauper orphanages. From there,  assuming that they had reached the required ages and were healthy enough,  they were sold to industry. The selection process in 21stCentury Germany is based on conspicuousness: Anything which the Youth Organization can latch onto is part of the process: It may start with an application for assistance from a mother with a large family, a school report, a child with bruises or anything similar.    A system of checking for child maltreatment or abuse was introduced in Germany earlier this year and consists of compulsory periodic medical tests on all children up to a certain age. One might think that this would largely protect also the parents from the allegations of the local Youth Service. However, looking at the list of known measures available to German authorities under “How it Works”, this would only solve a small part of the problem.     The Allegations against the Parents
In 19th Century Britain, it was not necessary to make allegations against the parents, because there was a ready source of labor already in the institutions. The only theoretically possible allegation against the parents would have been, that they were poor.     In 21st Century Germany, it is necessary to make allegations against the parents. Anything in the list, which would put their fitness to raise children in doubt, will do. Most Youth Services produce vague allegations, wild suppositions or concocted lies, which are subsequently used to discredit the parents. Such “evidence” is all accepted by the family courts –  even if they know that the Youth Workers are perjuring themselves. Expert Evidence
In 19th Century Britain there was a contractual examination of the candidate child at the time of sale, to establish his or her fitness for hard labor. If the child met with an industrial accident or died, there were plenty more replacements available.     In 21st Century Germany, it is usually necessary to recruit a specialist from the “usual sources” and ask him or her to produce the “right kind” of report. The usual sources will be the structures surrounding the Youth Service. The specialist will, in all but exceptional cases, be a psychologist or a psychiatrist.   The competence of these experts can be simply determined.  A questionnaire ( F2010P [4] ) was created, containing simple questions ranging from the important “did the specialist understand the tasking ?” to the trivial such as “did the specialist number the pages of the report ?”.  The analysis does not make the mistake of including specialist topics in the questionnaire, which would give rise to discussions. The requirements are, that the specialist clearly declares the state of the art, the methods applied and the reference works used for his or her report. The additional question “was the report credible or not ?” has to be answered by aggregating the answers to the important questions. This does not answer the question “was the report right or wrong ?”. It could be that asking a specialist, who had written a muddled report, to repeat his work would produce a satisfactory conclusion. The courts in Germany are apparently not in a position to exercise this supervisory task. A vast accumulation of mistakes in the report would, in any case, preclude this. The other important question is “would it be possible to task a counter-expertise on the basis of the report, as it stands ?” is a “make or break” for the specialist report. Seven cases, in which the care of children is a topic, were analysed and the results plotted

In one case ( G04 ) there was a surpise score of 95% of the total points awarded.  This was a psychiatric report from the University Clinic of Tübingen ( Prof. Günter Klosinski and Dr. M. Clauß)  and it was all the more surprising because it is the best report seen in 6 years from any branch. It is hardly surprising that this report could be classified as “Credible”.  In the other six cases, the news was not so good, however: they exhibited most of the defects of all expert reports in Germany. One can only describe the standard of workmanship as utterly appalling. None of the reports ( G01-G07 ) with the exception of G04 could be classified as in any way credible. Furthermore, with the maximum score of 20% there is every reason to also gravely doubt the standards of specialist workmanship. The judicial Procedure
The justice system in Germany has grave problems dating back to at least 1924. It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss all its defects – just enough to show it up as a flawed system.  A major credibility deficit is caused by the lack of separation of the judicative and the executive in Germany.   Judiciaries for the higher courts are chosen by political quotas. The vast majority of these judiciaries are card-carrying members of the political parties and many take part in active politics.  Active pursuance of commercial interests over and above the usual publication royalties is allowed, even encouraged. Poignant is the fact that Youth Committees boast a high proportion of court judges in their membership.  In short, it is a system just begging to be corrupted. For just a fraction of the transgressions a judiciary in Ireland or Britain would face instant dismissal. On 14.10.2004 the Constitutional Court abrogated the Treaty Article covering the binding nature of the decisions of the  European Court of Human Rights [5]. Whilst German Judiciaries have never observed the Convention in practice, other than by accident, this declaration will make it easier to press for sanctions against Germany and to isolate her as a renegade state.
None of the reports could be classified as “Credible”. In all cases there was no reference to any lists of experts, so that it was not clear how or why (what qualifications and experience were needed) the expert was selected. In general no deadline for the delivery of the report was given. Only vague references or none at all to the regulations to be applied to the report were made. There were no supervisory check-marks laid down and in particular there were no acceptance tests defined. In all it is only possible to say that German judiciaries do not know how to task expert evidence. ( It is ironic that the same breed of people are sitting in judgement on contractual matters ).  It appears that the main aim of the exercise is to provide alibis for the court and for the Youth Services. The reports themselves, except for G04, bear all the hallmarks of  “desired result” expert evidence. Apart form these pieces of expert evidence, the lack of professional competence is  also evident in the court judgements. (At present an evaluation scheme for court judgements is under development) At present, it can be said these court documents in Germany are mostly vague and lacking in the essential formalities. A common defect in civil cases is the apparent absence of an application, which would be essential to constitute a court at all. For criminal cases such student mistakes as the statement “The police thought … “ are very common. Evidence is introduced in the judgements, without any indication as where it came from. If there are cross-references, they are not summarized, so that a file can disappear at a later date ( and they frequently do) and nobody will be able to reconstruct the reasoning behind the judgement. German judiciaries as a general rule do not know the difference between facts, rationale and deduction. They lump everything together under the heading “Gründe” (grounds). The Work Quality seems to improve with increased notoriety of the accused. Ironically, therefore, top terrorists are more likely to receive a fair hearing ( as fair as can be in Germany, with her flawed Rules of Procedure ) than any normal person.    Anyone thinking that there must be national laws against perversion of justice is right: there are such laws. However, these are hardly ever applied, so that perversion of justice is  the perfect crime in Germany. The Inducement of Financial Hardship
In 19th Century Britain, it was not necessary to artificially induce financial hardship on the parents to get their children, because poverty was sufficiently widespread for this purpose. In 21st Century Germany this is not the case, so a war of attrition has to be conducted against the selected parents, so that their children can be taken away from them. The use of financial pressure as a weapon is well known (LLAMS-Model). This weapon has been systematically applied against the Himmel Family, living in Kornwestheim ( Baden-Württemberg, S. Germany )  for 13 years to try to get their son and daughter away from them. Rolf Himmel is an Undertaker and Regina Himmel is a part-time administrative assistant, who at the moment is not working because of the necessity to take defensive measures against the Youth Organization. They adopted the children (twins) in Poland in July 1994 at the age of two, and gave them an excellent home, with all the attention that they needed.

Although the Youth Office had accused the parents of an infringement of German adoption procedures, the adoption had been perfectly legal under polish law. Immediately on the couple’s return to Germany with the children, the Youth Office in Ludwigsburg accused the couple of buying the children. The purchase of children, may well be one of the “customs” in the structures around the Youth Offices of Germany but certainly not in a regular polish home for children, where the adoption had taken place. The Youth Office subsequently tried to allocate the children to another German family through the polish courts and finally tried to annul the adoption through the Polish High Court. They failed on both counts, but not before the Himmel family had paid a lot of money for polish attorneys for the legal battle.  In particular, on their own initiative, they obtained certificates from doctors,  psychiatrists and psychologists to counter the untruthful inputs from the District Administration in Ludwigsburg to the polish courts. The District Administration Ludwigsburg has since taken Rolf and Regina Himmel through the whole gamut of persecution listed under “How it Works”.  Because of this, they have been forced into the permanent defensive. They have learned the major behaviour patterns of the Youth Service. For example, as soon as a child injures itself, be it in the school or in the home, they obtain an independent medical certificate to prove that they did not mistreat the child. Hardly a day goes by without some form of threat from the Youth Service. This of course has an economic effect on the parents, because while they are being kept busy by the District Administration in Ludwigsburg there is a net loss of working hours. Sandra developed a school phobia and started running away from school. The District Administration used this golden opportunity and committed her to the closed section of the child psychiatry of the St. Lucas Clinic in the Catholic Liebenau Trust ( see below ). She was transferred after three months in June 2007 to the Evangelical Children’s home in Herzogsägmühle, from where she escaped ( she has not yet, at the time of writing, been found). The District Administration in Ludwigsburg, which now has the custody of Sandra, are now taking action to deduct a proportion of the costs of this incarceration (€4.000 ) from Rolf Himmel’s salary as an undertaker. He will not  be able to withstand that kind of economic squeezing. Allegations of Parental Incompetence
Parental incompetence was certainly not a factor in 19th Century Britain for child trafficking. Poverty saw to that. In 21st Century Germany however, it is easy to allege – and just as easy for German courts not to ask what is behind the allegations. Gossip is always right for a hearing in Germany – if it comes from the ‘right’ side.
On the subject of incompetence, it should be borne in mind that the campaign against the Haase Family started with an expert evidence report. This report was also evaluated ( Fig. 2 – G05). It had the appearance of a good report at first sight, but on closer examination it was found to be a prefabricated cutting and pasting exercise, in which nothing fitted together. There was no adequate explanation of the methods used. There is an unnumbered bibliography for example, which is largely unused in the report and where it is cross-referenced, it is not clear why. There is mention of a questionnaire which was supposed to have been completed and signed by the mother. However, the specialist refers to it occasionally but did not include it in the report. The mother denies ever filling in such a questionnaire.  The fact that the specialist did not include the questionnaire in the report would tend to confirm this. It was only possible to award 20% of the marks to this report, making it the “best of the bad ones”. Because there were so many mistakes and omissions, it was not possible to classify the report as in any way “Credible”.
It is clear, also from the results of the other reports that, save for one case, the specialists were all massively incompetent. That these so-called experts should be assessing the parents’ competence just beggars belief. These reports also indicate what degree of competence is prevalent in the courts.
Induced psychiatric Problems
This section should not be confused with the entry in the list of allegations. This section is a measure of the psychological terror perpetrated against parents, in the hope that they will become psychiatric cases or commit suicide.
In 19th century there was certainly the same anomaly, some of it may have been deliberate and some of it caused by poverty.
In 1805 when Samuel Davy was seven years of age he was sent from the workhouse in Southwark in London to Mr. Watson’s Mill at Penny Dam near Preston. Later his brother was also sent to work in a mill. The parents did not know where Samuel and his brother were. The loss of her children, so preyed on the mind of Samuel’s mother that it brought on insanity, and she died in a state of madness.
This unfortunate woman must have felt bad enough but in 21st Century Germany they do the job much more thoroughly.
The Haase Family:
As Cornelia Haase was burying her daughter Lisa in January this year she said to SAM Television “I feel as though I am in a deep black hole” and explained how she felt. The Youth Office used this as an opportunity to taunt her with a renewed psychological attack. They wrote to the family court  saying,
“The psychic condition of Mrs. Haase gives rise to concern. It raises questions about her ability to be able to care adequately for her three daughters”
It should be said that Germany was roundly condemned by the European Court of Human Rights for its illegal actions against the Haase Family and was ordered to return the children. Of the seven children taken into care on the basis of an amateurish and highly defective report, only two have been returned. One has died.
The Himmel Family:
The Himmel Family was not in principle treated any differently: In the presence of a witness, they were told by the District Administration Office that they would never see their daughter again. In the closed section of the Catholic St. Lucas Clinic daughter Sandra was forcibly pumped with psycho drugs and locked up for 5 hours a day. At the Evangelical children’s home in Herzogsägmühle Sandra was told that she would never return home again and that her parents would give her up. All the abuses against the Himmel Family cannot be discussed here but a separate report has gone to some non-German members of the European Parliament.
Combinations of Measures
The Haase Family:
It is not necessary for the authorities to select just any one  measure from “How it works”, they can use any combination of measures as described in the LLAMS-Model up to a Total Sociological Attack (TSA).
The Haase Family lost 7 of their children in 2002 to the whims of a totally incompetent Youth Office and based on a thoroughly  amateurish expert evidence report ( Fig. 2 – G05). One of the children was confiscated at the hospital soon after birth.  It stands to reason that any court capable of accepting such  expert evidence quality, also puts the competence of its judiciaries and all the higher instances, that were called up, into question.
The perversions stretched to telling one of the trafficked children, that the parents were dead. This surpasses even what the Evangelical Children’s Home at Herzogsägmühle  told Sandra Himmel, i.e. that she would never return home and that her parents would abandon her.
The war of attrition against the Haase Family is perhaps the worst case of its kind in Germany, if not the whole of Europe. To go into all the details of this piece of savagery would be outside the scope of this paper (there is, however, much material on the Internet, in German [6] )  It would nevertheless be appropriate to look at an invoice for €1.423,26 which the Haase Family received from the City of Münster. That is a lot of money for a family in their situation.

Fig. 6. The Bill for Daughter Lisa’s Funeral sent to Cornelia Haase by the City of Münster, although she did not have custody of the child. Picture by courtesy of SAM the television channel.
Lisa took the break up of her family by the Youth Service hard followed by three years as the inmate of a children’s home, had left their mark. Lisa died in December 2006, they say of an acute Lung infection. However, the family doctor, with some logic, does not believe this. She had previously made two suicide attempts.
There are gruesome historical parallels to this, as reflected in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7 The Bill for the Execution of Journalist Erich Knauf which was sent to his Widow immediately afterwards. His ‘Crime’ had been to crack Hitler-Jokes in an Air-Raid Shelter.
The two invoices ( Figs 6 & 7 ) are separated in time by 63 years. The reader is left to contemplate the depths of barbarism to which the German official mentality is prepared to sink. This mentality does not reflect the spirit of the World Cup 2006, it is rather one of many Monsters that outlived the 1000 year Reich, and is still on the rampage.
Digressing slightly on the subject of Hitler Jokes:  German officials still protect themselves from criticism, publicity and insult by applying their infantile laws against insult and defamation – despite OSCE demands for their abolition. Not only is Germany retaining these ridiculous laws from the age of the monocle and duelling, she is, with approaching 180.000 cases per year, statistically at the top of Europe. The figure represents nearly 20% of all criminal cases. This fact, together with the numerous side jobs of German judiciaries, indicates drastic underemployment in the courts at the cost of the taxpayer.
Human Rights: the International Repercussions
Some Statistics
It is clear that Germany is a renegade state, which does not accept or observe the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Her abrogation of the article in the treaty is official confirmation of this. The fact that she violates human rights in an exceptionally grave way is illustrated not only in this paper but also in the following statistics:

Fig 8. The Human Rights Statistics
Although Germany does not publish any statistics on  her human rights violations – not surprisingly –  some of these have been measured by the NGOs [7]. The offenses against Art. 6 of the convention on human rights have been  recorded in a data base. Because every process , that we have seen,  contains systematic violations of human rights, it was decided to produce a plot of the ‘pollution’ of each hearing by offenses against Article 6, otherwise there would just be a saturation of the data.  Not altogether surprising is that offenses against Art 6-1 ( fair hearing etc. ) occur most frequently. Whilst it would be appropriate  to measure this ‘pollution’ on an annual basis –  to show trends, leading hopefully to zero in a few years -, there is not yet  enough data to support this. At present there are only about 70 cases recorded.
It can be assumed the human rights violations would have been massive in 19th  Century Britain, there is, however, no sensible way of measuring them.
It is clear that state, which thumbs its nose at the convention is no partner for the EU. For that reason we are producing a basis for pressing for EU- and OSCE-Sanctions against Germany e.g. exclusion from  international human rights councils. The decisions of the family courts will need to have international restrictions imposed on their international acceptance, because such  decisions can only be classed as “unsafe and unsound”.    The Conclusion
Whether the German Youth Service backed up by the Justice actually does the right thing on occasions is unknown. That is the classic problem of the disingenuous – Nobody will believe them, even on the occasions when they are telling the truth. The huge defects in the system and the its eminent lack of professional competence suggest that this would otherwise be a matter of pure chance.It is clear that Germany is, as far as the care of children goes, comparable with Britain in the latter half of Industrial Revolution. In other words there is a progress deficit of about 170 – 200 years in the attitudes to parents and their children in Germany. The primeval behaviour of the Youth Organizations would mean that there is an additional excursion backwards well beyond the 170-200 year point.  There are some very sick people in the Youth Offices, and there are quite a lot of social misfits who, thanks both to the lack of supervision in Germany and the lack of training, do not get discovered   On this point, the “viciousness factor”, the comparison with 19th Century Britain is redundant. In Britain of the 19th Century, there existed at least economic factors as an excuse for the excesses.
Although on an international basis, corruptibility would not necessarily mean that corruption is present in the system. In Germany, however, it must be assumed that there is a maximum of corruption present, mainly because the state organizations have an extraordinarily high corruptibility factor, due to the universal lack of supervision and the eminent lack of judicial independence in a broken-down justice system.
The international acceptance of the decisions of Germany’s  family  courts will have to be suspended until such time as Germany can guarantee human rights, proper supervision of departments, proper training of specialists as well as  judicial independence in her courts.

Peter Briody
“institut voigt”
18.11.2007
SkyPe:  “institutvoigt”Tel:   07545 941980Fax:  07545 941981email: briody@eucars.dewebsite: http://www.eucars.dePublic key: Auf Anfrage

http://www.eucars.de/Articles/ChildTraff/ChildTrafficking.html

Maternal Deprivation and Attatchment Theory

Bowlby Child Development

john bowlbyJohn Bowlby was a psychoanalyst (like Freud) and believed that mental health and behavioural problems could be attributed to early childhood. Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment suggests that children come into the world biologically pre-programmed to form attachments with others, because this will help them to survive.

Bowlby was very much influenced by ethological theory in general, but especially by Lorenz’s (1935) study of imprinting. Lornez showed that attachment was innate (in young ducklings) and therefore has a survival value.

Bowlby believed that attachment behaviours are instinctive and will be activated by any conditions that seem to threaten the achievement of proximity, such as separation, insecurity and fear.

Bowlby (1969, 1988) also postulated that the fear of strangers represents an important survival mechanism, built in by nature. Babies are born with the tendency to display certain innate behaviours (called social releasers) which help ensure proximity and contact with the mother or mother figure (e.g. crying, smiling, crawling, etc.) – these are species-specific behaviours.

During the evolution of the human species, it would have been the babies who stayed close to their mothers who would have survived to have children of their own and Bowlby hypothesised that both infants and mothers have evolved a biological need to stay in contact with each other. These attachment behaviours initially function like fixed action patterns and all share the same function. The infant produces innate ‘social releaser’ behaviours such as crying and smiling that stimulate caregiving from adults. The determinant of attachment is not food but care and responsiveness. Bowlby suggested that a child would initially form only one attachment and that the attachment figure acted as a secure base for exploring the world. The attachment relationship acts as a prototype for all future social relationships so disrupting it can have severe consequences.

The Main Points of Bowlby’s Attachment Theory:


1A child has an innate (i.e. inborn) need to attach to one main attachment figure (i.emonotropy).

Although Bowlby did not rule out the possibility of other attachment figures for a child, he did believe that there should be a primary bond which was much more important than any other (usually the mother).

Bowlby believes that this attachment is different in kind (qualitatively different) from any subsequent attachments. Bowlby argues that the relationship with the mother is somehow different altogether from other relationships.

Essentially, Bowlby suggested that the nature of monotropy (attachment conceptualised as being a vital and close bond with just one attachment figure) meant that a failure to initiate, or a breakdown of, the maternal attachment would lead to serious negative consequences, possibly including affectionless psychopathy. Bowlby’s theory of monotropy led to the formulation of his maternal deprivation hypothesis.


2A child should receive the continuous care of this single most important attachment figure for approximately the first two years of life.

Bowlby (1951) claimed that mothering is almost useless if delayed until after two and a half to three years and, for most children, if delayed till after 12 months, i.e. there is a critical period.

If the attachment figure is broken or disrupted during the critical two year period the child will suffer irreversible long-term consequences of this maternal deprivation. This risks continues until the age of 5.

Bowlby used the term maternal deprivation to refer to the separation or loss of the mother as well as failure to develop an attachment.

The underlying assumption of Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis is that continual disruption of the attachment between infant and primary caregiver (i.e. mother) could result in long term cognitive, social, and emotional difficulties for that infant. The implications of this are vast – if this is true, should the primary caregiver leave their child in day care, whilst they continue to work?


3. The long term consequences of maternal deprivation might include the following:

• delinquency,

• reduced intelligence,

• increased aggression,

• depression,

• affectionless psychopathy

Affectionless psychopathy is an inability show affection or concern for others. Such of individuals act on impulse with little regard for the consequences of their actions. For example, showing no guilt for antisocial behaviour.


44 Thieves Study (Bowlby, 1944)

John Bowlby believed that the relationship between the infant and its mother during the first five years of life was most crucial to socialisation. He believed that disruption of this primary relationship could lead to a higher incidence of juvenile delinquency, emotional difficulties and antisocial behaviour. To support his hypothesis, he studied 44 adolescent juvenile delinquents in a child guidance clinic.

Aim: To investigate the effects of maternal deprivation on people in order to see whether delinquents have suffered deprivation. According to the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis, breaking the maternal bond with the child during the early stages of its life is likely to have serious effects on its intellectual, social and emotional development.

Procedure: Bowlby interviewed 44 adolescents who were referred to a child protection program in London because of stealing- i.e. they were thieves. Bowlby selected another group of 44 children to act as ‘controls’. N.b. controls: individuals referred to clinic because of emotional problems, but not yet committed any crimes. He interviewed the parents from both groups to state whether their children had experienced separation during the critical period and for how long.

bowlby 44 thieves graph resultsFindings: More than half of the juvenile thieves had been separated from their mothers for longer than six months during their first five years. In the control group only two had had such a separation. He also found several of the young thieves (32%) showed ‘affectionless psychopathy’ (they were not able to care about or feel affection for others). None of the control group were affectionless psychopaths.

In a later paper, he reported that 60 children who had spent time apart from their mothers in a tuberculosis sanatorium before the age of 4 showed lower achievement in school.

Conclusion: Affectionless psychopaths show little concern for others and are unable to form relationships. Bowlby concluded that the reason for the anti-social behaviour and emotional problems in the first group was due to maternal deprivation.

Evaluation: The supporting evidence that Bowlby (1944) provided was in the form of clinical interviews of, and retrospective data on, those who had and had not been separated from their primary caregiver.

This meant that Bowlby was asking the participants to look back and recall separations. These memories may not be accurate. Bowlby designed and conducted the experiment himself. This may have lead to experimenter bias. Particularly as he was responsible for making the diagnosis of affectionless psychopathy.


Evaluation of Bowlby’s (1946, 1956) Attachment Theory

Bowlby’s ideas had a great influence on the way researchers thought about attachment and much of the discussion of his theory has focused on his belief in monotropy.

Although Bowlby may not dispute that young children form multiple attachments, he still contends that the attachment to the mother is unique in that it is the first to appear and remains the strongest of all. However, on both of these counts, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

  • Schaffer & Emerson (1964) noted that specific attachments started at about 8 months and, very shortly thereafter, the infants became attached to other people. By 18 months very few (13%) were attached to only one person; some had five or more attachments.
  • Rutter (1981) points out that several indicators of attachment (such as protest or distress when attached person leaves) has been shown for a variety of attachment figures – fathers, siblings, peers and even inanimate objects.

Critics such as Rutter have also accused Bowlby of not distinguishing between deprivation and privation – the complete lack of an attachment bond, rather than its loss. Rutter stresses that the quality of the attachment bond is the most important factor, rather than just deprivation in the critical period.

Another criticism of 44 Thieves Study as that it concluded that affectionless psychopathy was caused by maternal deprivation. This is correlational data and as such only shows a relationship between these two variables. Indeed, other external variables, such as diet, parental income, education etc. may have affected the behaviour of the 44 thieves, and not, as concluded, the disruption of the attachment bond.

Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation is however, supported Harlow’s research with monkeys. He showed that monkeys reared in isolation from their mother suffered emotional and social problems in older age. The monkey’s never formed an attachment (privation) and as such grew up to be aggressive and had problems interacting with other monkeys.

Konrad Lorenz (1935) supports Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis as the attachment process of imprinting is an innate process.

There are implications arising from Bowlby’s work. As he believed the mother to be the most central care giver and that this care should be given on a continuous basis an obvious implication is that mothers should not go out to work. There have been many attacks on this claim:

  • Mothers are the exclusive carers in only a very small percentage of human societies; often there are a number of people involved in the care of children, such as relations and friends (Weisner & Gallimore, 1977).
  • Ijzendoorn & Tavecchio (1987) argue that a stable network of adults can provide adequate care and that this care may even have advantages over a system where a mother has to meet all a child’s needs.
  • There is evidence that children develop better with a mother who is happy in her work, than a mother who is frustrated by staying at home (Schaffer, 1990).

Bowlby PDF Downloads

Public Law Care Requests

Staffordshire Local Authority Staff With Mental Health AND Alcohol issues


Psychiatrists Make New Findings For DSM

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 8:39 am
Tags: , , , ,
NEW BATCH OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS DISCOVERED
A doctor who was commissioned by the family courts to do research on personality disorders has revealed there are many more than first thought.
Dr Pindick was paid £ 1000567987 by a family judge to assess thousands of parents whos children had been removed by social services.
He discovered that the new personality disorders include
loath and despise syndrome ….. a parents hatred of social workers
your all corrupt lying bastards syndrome….. a parents hatred of family courts.
stick your order up your arse syndrome……. parents refusing to be gagged.
He also discovered a new strain of tourettes after observing many parents using launguage such as ” fuck ss, fuck cafcass ,all lying bastards,twats, wankers “
He proclaimed these to be wildy abnormal and sectioned all parents to a mental institution on remote island in the hebrides.
Our reporter visited the hospital and witnessed thousands of parents wearing a straightgag which is a new defice fitted around the mouth to prevent them saying obscenities.

Maltreatment of Mothers in care proceedings and Article 3

Maltreatment of Mothers in care proceedings and Article 3
I have linked this blog post to the European Court Judgment that the government use to justify the lawfulness of the maltreatment of mothers (particularly, but also fathers) in Public Family Law Proceedings.
The key part of the judgment is as follows:
2. The case of RK and AK
a. Article 3 of the Convention
The Court recalls that the Government have argued that this complaint falls to be dismissed for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since the applicants did not rely on this provision in the domestic proceedings. It does not rule on this issue since this part of the application must be rejected for the following reasons.
The Court’s case-law establishes that Article 3, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment cannot be relied on where distress and anguish, however deep, flow, inevitably, from measures which are otherwise compatible with the Convention, unless there is a special element which causes the suffering to go beyond that inherent in the their implementation (see, mutatis mutandis, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, p. 15, § 30; Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 39, § 100; V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX). Child protection measures will, generally, cause parents distress and on occasion humiliation, if they are suspected of failing, in some way, in their parental responsibilities. However, given the responsibility of the authorities under Article 3 to protect children from severe abuse, whether mental or physical, it would be somewhat contradictory to the effective protection of children’s rights to hold that authorities were automatically liable to parents under this provision whenever they erred, reasonably or otherwise, in their execution of their duties. As mentioned above, there must be a factor apart from the normal implementation of those duties which brings the matter within the scope of Article 3.
In the present case, where it is not disputed that their child suffered an injury which could not initially be accounted for, while the Court does not doubt the applicants’ distress at events, the fact that they were mistakenly suspected of abuse, and their account of events considered to be unsatisfactory or false, cannot be regarded as constituting special elements in the sense identified above. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Where the government lawyers err is in their argument that the trauma caused to mothers is “inevitable”. Other countries manage to do a better job in terms of protecting children whilst also not causing the same trauma to parents (particularly mothers).
posted by john ¶ 2:08 PM 0 comments 
Sunday, February 15, 2009

Child Contact

DIRECT CONTACT means meetings between the child/young person and birth family members and/or significant others, and includes phone calls, texting and emails.
INDIRECT CONTACT mean letters and cards from members of the birth family and /or significant others, usually through a third person.
•Contact is a key issue for children and they often have ambivalent feelings, both wanting it but feeling distressed at the same time. They often desire more contact with fathers and other family members, such as grandmothers and siblings, as well as with mothers, even if they are happy in their placement and do not want to return home.
•Parents also have these ambivalent feelings. Many desperately miss their children, want to have contact and find the experience distressing.
•The amount of contact between looked-after children and their birth families is increasing.
•Developments such as increased placement stability, open communication and improved relationships are often the result of additional interventions, not just contact between birth families and their children alone. However, contact may achieve specific and perhaps more limited and realistic goals, such as reassuring children about what is happening at home.
•Current practice assumes a strong principle, supported by legislation, that contact is generally beneficial and should be promoted, unless it is not in the child’s best interests. Decisions need to be made on the different aspects of contact, for example contact with family members. Contact must always be ‘fine tuned’, assessing and taking into account any risks.
•If the child has been abused, contact can allow abuse to continue if there is unsupervised direct contact or ineffective scrutiny of letters and cards.
•Foster carers are generally positive about contact but some report problems associated with it. In some cases these are serious.
Practice points
•Ask yourself if you have explored all opportunities for contact, either direct or indirect. Remember that children in foster care have a legal right to contact with their birth family and most children want to keep in contact, although they find it distressing at times. Also, remember that contact often helps children’s feelings of identity: being valued, respected and appreciated.
•Ask yourself if you have ‘fine tuned’ contact and consulted with the child about all the different aspects of contact, for example, with different family members. Remember not to treat it as a ‘blanket’ event and ask yourself if you have considered all the alternatives to direct contact when this is not possible.
•Remember to ask children about the contact they want to have with their brothers and sisters and other relatives, for example grandparents. You can also consider previous carers. Try and make contact arrangements because this can be very important to them.
•Remember that children who have been abused by their family members should be protected from risks posed by contact and that their rights to contact can be overruled in the need to keep them safe. Ask yourself if you and their carers have talked with them about how safe they feel and remember to look out for non-verbal signs that may indicate that the child does not feel safe.
•Remember that children who have been abused should not have unsupervised contact with family members who are involved in, or associated with the abuse. Ask yourself if you should scrutinise letters and cards. There must be a formal decision about every risk.
•Remember that most parents also want to have contact, although they may find it distressing, so make sure you talk with parents about how contact could be made less stressful.
•Research shows that contact by itself does not result in improved outcomes, for example, settled placements and reunification and you should consider additional interventions to achieve these goals.
•Think about the aims of contact between children and their families and whether they are being achieved. The value of contact may be as much to do with reducing distress, helping to keep in touch and to feel valued and respected, as with achieving other outcomes. What can you do to support parents with managing contact?
•Foster carers’ needs are also important when making arrangements, so things needs to be discussed in advance to tackle any problems.
What we know from research
Types of contact
Contact can be through meetings, phone calls or letters with specific members of the family. Meetings can be unsupervised or supervised by social workers, foster carers, other professionals and sometimes other family members or friends.
Contact can take place in a variety of venues. Meetings can take place at different dates and times, regularly or every now and then. However, making arrangements that please everybody and are in the best interests of the child can sometimes be complex and difficult.
Children’s opinions on contact
Contact is a key issue for children. They often spend a lot of time thinking about their relationship with their family and are often distressed by the thought of contact. Many children think about their families every day (2). When children in another study were asked to think of their two most important wishes for their future, a quarter prioritised seeing more of, or being reunited with, their birth family (3).
Children often want more contact with fathers and other family members, such as grandmothers and siblings, as well as mothers, even if they are happy in their placement and do not want to return home. Some want contact with particular family members, and not with others (17), while other children prefer indirect to direct contact.
Decisions need to be made around the different aspects of contact. You will need to consider the child’s wishes and feelings on the variety of contact options, such as indirect and direct contact as well as contact with different family members. Contact must always be ‘fine tuned’, assessing and taking into account any risks. (17)
Many looked-after children – 40 – 50 per cent – have contact with a family member at least weekly and only a minority, between one in six or seven children, do not have any contact with a member of their birth family (3).
Birth parent views on contact
Parents often have mixed feelings about having their children in care and this can affect the way they feel about contact arrangements. Feelings can range from relief to shame, and concern that they have ‘failed’, or can be mixture of all of these. Most parents desperately miss their child, want to have contact, and may often find the experience very distressing (2).
Parents often have difficulty in asking for help when their child returns home because of the associated stigma and the possible risk of losing their child again. When their child is accommodated at their request or as result of the child’s difficult behaviour they often welcome it, but they often resent compulsory intervention (3).
Contact and re-abuse
Direct, and even sometimes indirect, contact can allow abuse to continue. One study found that in situations where the child had been abused, and there was unsupervised contact with all family members, placement breakdown was three times more likely to occur, as well as re-abuse (17).
The relationship between contact and improved outcomes
Research (3) argues that contact between birth families and children does not, on its own, facilitate reunification or improve relationships. Additional interventions are also needed. Contact can, however, achieve specific and perhaps more limited and realistic goals, such as reassuring children about what is happening at home.
Other research knowledge (2) on the relationship between outcomes and contact is summarised by a series of linked reviews of studies about contact in fostering and adoption, mainly in the UK (50-53). When researchers reviewed the studies they did not find a clear relationship between contact and improved outcomes in areas such as placement stability and improvements in the child’s mental health. They did not always find that different factors had been considered in the research and queried whether imprecise definitions of contact and weak measures of outcomes had been used. They noted a failure to effectively consider the quality, purpose and setting of the contact and to use small self-selected samples.
Whilst a certain level of contact is needed if reunification is to be achieved, it is now uncertain whether contact as a factor by itself results in the improved outcomes previously thought to be associated with it.
Good outcomes, such as reduced placement breakdown, improved mental health in children and returning home, may be more a result of factors that preceded placement. Children who have direct contact with birth parents usually already have a good attachment to them, which precedes their placement and because of this they may be better adjusted, more likely to experience a stable placement and more likely to go home to their parents (54). More research is urgently needed in this area.
Current practice assumes a strong underlying principle, supported by legislation, that contact is generally beneficial and should be promoted as long as it is in the child’s best interests and does not increase risk (55). However in some situations there may often be dilemmas and concerns about contact.
Views of foster carers
Foster carers, whilst generally positive about contact, report some serious problems associated with it. These include drinking, serious mental health problems and violence from members of the birth family. They also express concern about more common problems such as unreliability and have worries about the impact of contact on the behaviour of the foster child, as well as their own children

Serious Case Reviews Findings For Your Area

Local area SCR evaluation Date of
evaluation
letter
Somerset Inadequate 24/07/2007
Lambeth Inadequate 23/08/2007
Derbyshire Adequate 17/09/2007
Durham Good 17/09/2007
Surrey Good 17/09/2007
Lancashire Good 04/10/2007
Sandwell Inadequate 04/10/2007
Derbyshire Adequate 22/10/2007
Lincolnshire Adequate 23/10/2007
Essex Adequate 26/10/2007
Staffordshire Inadequate 16/11/2007
Bury Good 19/11/2007
Shropshire Inadequate 26/11/2007
Bristol Adequate 27/11/2007
Barnsley Adequate 29/11/2007
Thurrock Inadequate 11/12/2007
Leicestershire Adequate 20/12/2007
Northamptonshire Inadequate 21/12/2007
Trafford Adequate 21/12/2007
Sheffield Good 27/12/2007
Bristol Inadequate 04/01/2008
Lincolnshire Inadequate 15/01/2008
Bury Adequate 22/01/2008
Hertfordshire Inadequate 28/01/2008
Walsall Good 29/01/2008
Hampshire Good 31/01/2008
Derbyshire Adequate 05/02/2008
Hampshire Adequate 05/02/2008
Havering Good 10/02/2008
Southend Good 19/02/2008
Doncaster Adequate 21/02/2008
Cheshire Adequate 26/02/2008
South Tyneside Adequate 26/02/2008
Suffolk Good 26/02/2008
Doncaster Inadequate 29/02/2008
Rochdale Good 29/02/2008
Northamptonshire Inadequate 03/03/2008
Northamptonshire Inadequate 03/03/2008
Derbyshire Inadequate 06/03/2008
Worcestershire Good 11/03/2008
Warwickshire Good 25/03/2008
Bromley Adequate 01/04/2008
Cornwall Inadequate 04/04/2008
Cornwall Inadequate 07/04/2008
Suffolk Inadequate 07/04/2008
Nottingham City Inadequate 11/04/2008
Hampshire Adequate 09/04/2008
Hampshire Inadequate 09/04/2008
Northamptonshire Adequate 10/04/2008
Cornwall Inadequate 11/04/2008
Herefordshire Good 14/04/2008
Hampshire Adequate 16/04/2008
Nottingham City Adequate 16/04/2008
Rotherham Inadequate 18/04/2008
Nottingham City Good 21/04/2008
Warwickshire Adequate 21/04/2008
Rotherham Inadequate 22/04/2008
Oxfordshire Adequate 23/04/2008
Southwark Adequate 24/04/2008
Havering Adequate 02/05/2008
Bolton Inadequate 06/05/2008
Peterborough Inadequate 14/04/2008
Birmingham Inadequate 25/06/2008
Birmingham Inadequate 25/06/2008
Birmingham Inadequate 26/06/2008
Nottingham City Adequate 26/06/2008
Durham Adequate 27/06/2008
Somerset Adequate 27/06/2008
Portsmouth Inadequate 03/07/2008
Tower Hamlets Adequate 18/07/2008
Shropshire Good 21/07/2008
Barnsley Inadequate 22/07/2008
Stockport Inadequate 22/07/2008
Tower Hamlets Good 25/07/2008
Manchester Inadequate 05/08/2008
Surrey Inadequate 05/08/2008
Surrey Inadequate 05/08/2008
Surrey Inadequate 05/08/2008
West Berkshire Adequate 05/08/2008
Devon Inadequate 08/08/2008
North East Lincolnshire Inadequate 11/08/2008
Bromley Adequate 12/08/2008
Birmingham Adequate 14/08/2008
Hertfordshire Adequate 14/08/2008
Kent Good 14/08/2008
Kirklees Adequate 14/08/2008
Rotherham Adequate 14/08/2008
South Tyneside Good 14/08/2008
Manchester Adequate 22/08/2008
Middleborough Inadequate 26/08/2008
Devon Inadequate 28/08/2008
Redbridge Good 29/08/2008
Plymouth Inadequate 02/09/2008
Bradford Inadequate 04/09/2008
Devon Adequate 04/09/2008
Norfolk Adequate 04/09/2008
Northamptonshire Inadequate 05/09/2008
Enfield Good 09/09/2008
Reading Inadequate 09/09/2008
Waltham Forest Adequate 09/09/2008
Barnet Good 16/09/2008
Coventry Adequate 16/09/2008
Coventry Good 16/09/2008
Hounslow Inadequate 17/09/2008
Kent Adequate 18/09/2008
Lambeth Good 18/09/2008
Salford Inadequate 18/09/2008
Wolverhampton Good 18/09/2008
Oxfordshire Inadequate 23/09/2008
Coventry Adequate 24/09/2008
Northumberland Adequate 26/09/2008
Bournemouth Inadequate 01/10/2008
Bournemouth Inadequate 01/10/2008
Liverpool Inadequate 01/10/2008
Thurrock Adequate 01/10/2008
Wakefield Adequate 01/10/2008
Leicestershire Inadequate 03/10/2008
Leeds Adequate 06/10/2008
Barking & Dagenham Good 17/10/2008
Manchester Adequate 17/10/2008
Manchester Inadequate 17/10/2008
Nottinghamshire Adequate 17/10/2008
South Tyneside Adequate 17/10/2008
Wigan Adequate 21/10/2008
Northamptonshire Inadequate 22/10/2008
Westminster Good 28/10/2008
Worcestershire Good 11/11/2008
Sandwell Adequate 31/10/2008
Croydon Inadequate 05/11/2008
Derbyshire Adequate 05/11/2008
Blackburn with Darwen Adequate 06/11/2008
Bristol Inadequate 07/11/2008
Nottinghamshire Adequate 07/11/2008
Ealing Adequate 11/11/2008
Newcastle Adequate 11/11/2008
Norfolk Adequate 19/11/2008
Camden Adequate 25/11/2008
Salford Inadequate 25/11/2008
Lancashire Inadequate 24/11/2008
Birmingham Inadequate 28/11/2008
Wokingham Inadequate 27/11/2008
Devon Inadequate 01/12/2008
Stockport Adequate 08/12/2008
Essex Inadequate 09/12/2008
Liverpool Good 10/12/2008
Hackney Adequate 12/12/2008
Somerset Good 19/12/2008
Somerset Good 19/12/2008
Bradford Adequate 29/12/2008
Croydon Good 29/12/2008
Greenwich Good 29/12/2008
North Yorkshire Adequate 29/12/2008
York Adequate 29/12/2008
Norfolk Inadequate 05/01/2009
Hampshire Good 12/01/2009
Kingston upon Thames Adequate 12/01/2009
Bexley Inadequate 19/01/2009
Hampshire Adequate 20/01/2009
Kent Good 20/01/2009
Kirklees Inadequate 20/01/2009
Peterborough Inadequate 20/01/2009
Tower Hamlets Good 20/01/2009
Brighton & Hove Good 23/01/2009
Calderdale Adequate 23/01/2009
Kingston upon Hull Adequate 23/01/2009
Cornwall Good 26/01/2009
Gloucestershire Adequate 26/01/2009
Lincolnshire Adequate 26/01/2009
Rotherham Good 26/01/2009
Witshire Inadequate 26/01/2009
Lincolnshire Adequate 28/01/2009
North Somerset Good 28/01/2009
Sefton Adequate 28/01/2009
Surrey Adequate 28/01/2009
Isle of Wight Inadequate 30/01/2009
Northamptonshire Adequate 30/01/2009
Portsmouth Good 30/01/2009
Suffolk Adequate 30/01/2009
Derbyshire Inadequate 02/02/2009
Cumbria Inadequate 03/02/2009
Worcestershire Adequate 04/02/2009
Doncaster Adequate 06/02/2009
Halton Adequate 06/02/2009
Poole Adequate 06/02/2009
Wirral Good 06/02/2009
Hammersmith & Fulham Adequate 09/02/2009
Hackney Good 13/02/2009
Manchester Adequate 13/02/2009
Blackpool Inadequate 16/02/2009
Kingston upon Thames Inadequate 17/02/2009
Lancashire Inadequate 17/02/2009
Calderdale Good 18/02/2009
Southampton Adequate 18/02/2009
Lancashire Inadequate 19/02/2009
Shropshire Inadequate 23/02/2009
Nottingham City Adequate 25/02/2009
Rochdale Inadequate 27/02/2009
Southampton Inadequate 27/02/2009
Manchester Adequate 03/03/2009
Essex Adequate 04/03/2009
Rochdale Inadequate 12/03/2009
Staffordshire Adequate 13/03/2009
Nottingham City Adequate 17/03/2009
Sandwell Adequate 17/03/2009
Leicester City Adequate 20/03/2009
Buckinghamshire Good 23/03/2009
Enfield Good 23/03/2009
Kent Good 23/03/2009
Sheffield Good 23/03/2009
Sheffield Good 23/03/2009
Doncaster Inadequate 24/03/2009
Kent Good 24/03/2009
Cambridgeshire Adequate 26/03/2009
Enfield Adequate 26/03/2009
Leeds Adequate 30/03/2009
Haringey Good 07/04/2009
Devon Inadequate 09/04/2009
Gloucestershire Adequate 09/04/2009
North Tyneside Adequate 15/04/2009
Hampshire Inadequate 23/04/2009
Kirklees Adequate 23/04/2009
Leicestershire Adequate 27/04/2009
Milton Keynes Good 27/04/2009
North East Lincolnshire Inadequate 27/04/2009
Essex Adequate 29/04/2009
Sandwell Adequate 29/04/2009
Blackburn with Darwen Inadequate 30/04/2009
Bromley Adequate 30/04/2009
Norfolk Adequate 30/04/2009
Southampton Adequate 30/04/2009
Staffordshire Inadequate 30/04/2009
Tower Hamlets Good 30/04/2009
Birmingham Adequate 01/05/2009
Birmingham Adequate 01/05/2009
Dorset Good 01/05/2009
Leeds Good 05/05/2009
Middlesborough Good 06/05/2009
Wakefield Adequate 06/05/2009
Southampton Adequate 07/05/2009
Brent Adequate 13/05/2009
North East Lincolnshire Adequate 13/05/2009
Westminster Good 13/05/2009
Blackburn with Darwin Inadequate 14/05/2009
Durham Good 14/05/2009
Liverpool Good 14/05/2009
Coventry Adequate 15/05/2009
Dudley Good 15/05/2009
Manchester Good 15/05/2009
Wakefield Good 15/05/2009
Cheshire Inadequate 20/05/2009
Doncaster Good 20/05/2009
Doncaster Good 21/05/2009
North Tyneside Inadequate 04/06/2009
Sunderland Adequate 08/06/2009
Knowsley Good 08/06/2009
Knowsley Adequate 08/06/2009
East Sussex Inadequate 12/06/2009
Cheshire East Inadequate 12/06/2009
Dorset Adequate 15/06/2009
Sutton Inadequate 26/08/2009
Royal Borough of
Windsor and
Maidenhead
Good 25/06/2009
North Somerset Good 25/06/2009
Stockton-on-Tees Inadequate 26/06/2009
Luton Adequate 30/06/2009
Cumbria Inadequate 30/06/2009
Surrey Good 30/06/2009
Redcar & Cleveland Inadequate 06/07/2009
Sutton Inadequate 26/08/2009
Halton Good 06/07/2009
Camden Adequate 06/07/2009
Salford Adequate 03/07/2009
Hampshire Adequate 14/07/2009
St Helen’s Adequate 27/07/2009
Southwark Good 29/07/2009
Bexley Good 29/07/2009
Tameside Inadequate 30/07/2009
Lincolnshire Inadequate 30/07/2009
Liverpool Adequate 31/07/2009
Shropshire Good 03/08/2009
Lancashire Adequate 03/08/2009
Wirral Adequate 03/08/2009
Greenwich Good 03/08/2009
Torbay Adequate 25/09/2009
Essex Adequate 04/08/2009
East Sussex Inadequate 05/08/2009
Barnet Inadequate 07/08/2009
Peterborough Adequate 07/08/2009
Worcestershire Adequate 11/08/2009
Kirklees Adequate 11/08/2009
Wigan Good 12/08/2009
Poole Good 14/08/2009
Greenwich Good 14/08/2009
Haringey Adequate 10/09/2009
Herts Adequate 15/09/2009
Surrey Good 15/09/2009
Northumberland Adequate 15/09/2009
Kirklees Good 15/09/2009
Birmingham Adequate 17/09/2009
Lancashire Adequate 18/09/2009
Durham Adequate 21/09/2009
Havering Good 23/09/2009
Kirklees Good 23/09/2009
Lancashire Adequate 28/09/2009

Where Have All The Children Gone ( to be sung to the tune of where have all the flowers gone by peter , paul and mary )

where have all the children gone?
long time passing
where have all the children gone ?
long time ago
where have all the children gone?
forcibly adopted one by one
when will they ever learn
when will they ever learn
where have all the mothers gone?
long time passing
where have all the mothers gone?
long time ago
where have all the mothers gone?
sent to asylums one by one
when will they ever learn?
when will they ever learn?
where have all the fathers gone?
long time passing
where have all the fathers gone?
long time ago
where have all the fathers gone ?
driven to depression one by one
when will they ever learn
when will they ever learn
where have all the families gone?
long time passing
where have all the families gone?
long time ago
where have all the families gone
DESTROYED BY THE GOVERNMENT
ONE BY ONE
when will they ever learn ?
when will they ever learn?
By nojustice  ©

Statistics of children in Care

Filed under: Uncategorized — nojusticeforparents @ 8:12 am
47% Of Children Leaving Care At 16+ Had No Qualifications
This year, the academic attainment of children in care leaving school was dramatically lower than that of their peers.
A 2002 Department of Health report1 found that in the appropriate age group:
* 50% of children in care had obtained Key Stage 1, level 2 compared to 85% of all children.
* 40% of children in care had obtained Key Stage 2, level 4 compared to 78% of all children.
* 22% of children in care had obtained Key Stage 3, level 5 compared to 66% of all children.
And at GCSE stage:
* Only 53% of children in care obtained at least one GCSE or GNVQ compared with 95% of all children.
* Only 8% of children in care obtained at least 5 GCSE’s at grades A*- C compared with 50% of all children.
Key Literacy Statistics:
* Between a ¼ and a 1/3 of rough sleepers have been looked after by local authorities as children.
* Children who have been in care are two and half times more likely to become a teenage parent
* Young people who have been in care are disproportionately more likely to become unemployed.
* Young people who have been in care are disproportionately likely to end up in prison. 26% of prisoners have been in care as children, compared with just 2% of the general population.

47% Of Children Leaving Care At 16+ Had No Qualifications
This year, the academic attainment of children in care leaving school was dramatically lower than that of their peers.

A 2002 Department of Health report1 found that in the appropriate age group:
* 50% of children in care had obtained Key Stage 1, level 2 compared to 85% of all children.* 40% of children in care had obtained Key Stage 2, level 4 compared to 78% of all children.* 22% of children in care had obtained Key Stage 3, level 5 compared to 66% of all children.
And at GCSE stage:
* Only 53% of children in care obtained at least one GCSE or GNVQ compared with 95% of all children.* Only 8% of children in care obtained at least 5 GCSE’s at grades A*- C compared with 50% of all children.

Key Literacy Statistics:
* Between a ¼ and a 1/3 of rough sleepers have been looked after by local authorities as children.* Children who have been in care are two and half times more likely to become a teenage parent* Young people who have been in care are disproportionately more likely to become unemployed.* Young people who have been in care are disproportionately likely to end up in prison. 26% of prisoners have been in care as children, compared with just 2% of the general population.

“emotional abuse” – a category so broad and ill-defined that it can include both praising your children too much and not praising them enough, or feeding them too many vegetables or too little fresh fruit.

Telegraph View: Child abuse won’t be overcome until we define what it is
Ed Balls will fail unless he gives guidance on what social workers should be doing.
Telegraph View
Last Updated: 7:39PM GMT 10 Jan 2009
Comments 24 | Comment on this article
The horrific accounts of errors and incompetence by social services officials that we publish today will generate outrage and despair: outrage that officials could leave children with parents they know to be violent, criminal and addicted to drugs; and despair that despite the hundreds of inquiries, the hundreds of inspections, despite the repeated promises from the Government that things are getting better, nothing changes. The same mistakes are consistently repeated, with fatal consequences for children.
The persistent failure of social workers to protect children who are in very serious danger is made even more outrageous by the profession’s propensity to remove children from parents who are manifestly no danger at all to them. Of the 35,000 children who are taken into care every year on the recommendation of social workers, a large proportion are removed on grounds of “emotional abuse” – a category so broad and ill-defined that it can include both praising your children too much and not praising them enough, or feeding them too many vegetables or too little fresh fruit. It appears that social workers, aware of their inability to intervene in cases where children really are at risk, compensate for that failure by intervening in families where they are obviously safe.
There is no doubt that those two bad practices are connected. The resources of social work departments are, as directors of those departments frequently point out, strictly limited. Time spent investigating parents who do not threaten or endanger the children in their care is time not spent investigating, visiting or intervening in the cases where there is a threat. If genuinely at-risk children are to be protected, resources have to be targeted at cases where parents pose a clear and present danger.
It is, in a literal sense, true that social workers do not know what they are doing. That is not their fault. Government “advice” on what they should do is, quite correctly, centred on ensuring that children are protected from “significant harm”. But, in all the many hundreds of pages that both Labour and Conservative governments have issued on when social workers should intervene, the notion of “significant harm” has never been defined in a meaningful and precise way. The result is that it is left to officials to interpret the term as they see fit. And that means “significant harm” has as many interpretations as there are social workers: one can conclude that a child whose parents are violent drug-addicts is not at risk of “significant harm”, while another can claim that a parent who “plays too often and too long” with her is so dangerous that the child should be taken into care.
The first step the Government needs to take in order to stop this malpractice is properly to define the notion of “significant harm”. That will not prevent fatal misjudgments being made. But it will make those misjudgments less likely. It will save the lives of many children, and also prevent forcible removal from parents who love them and protect them, and who would provide them with a far better start in life than the dismal future that awaits those who are taken into state care. It will also make it possible for the inquiries and inspections that take place after a child dies to say something useful, instead of merely reporting (as they do at present) that “no one was to blame”. So long as inspectors do not work with a clear and fixed notion of “significant harm”, they are in exactly the same position as social workers: they cannot identify the kinds of practice that they ought to prevent.
Ed Balls, the Children’s Secretary, has insisted that he will take steps to end social services’ persistent failure to protect seriously at-risk children. He will fail unless he gives clear guidance on what social workers should be doing – and he can only do that by defining the notion of “significant harm.” We await his proposals.

Telegraph View: Child abuse won’t be overcome until we define what it isEd Balls will fail unless he gives guidance on what social workers should be doing.Telegraph View Last Updated: 7:39PM GMT 10 Jan 2009Comments 24 | Comment on this articleThe horrific accounts of errors and incompetence by social services officials that we publish today will generate outrage and despair: outrage that officials could leave children with parents they know to be violent, criminal and addicted to drugs; and despair that despite the hundreds of inquiries, the hundreds of inspections, despite the repeated promises from the Government that things are getting better, nothing changes. The same mistakes are consistently repeated, with fatal consequences for children.The persistent failure of social workers to protect children who are in very serious danger is made even more outrageous by the profession’s propensity to remove children from parents who are manifestly no danger at all to them. Of the 35,000 children who are taken into care every year on the recommendation of social workers, a large proportion are removed on grounds of “emotional abuse” – a category so broad and ill-defined that it can include both praising your children too much and not praising them enough, or feeding them too many vegetables or too little fresh fruit. It appears that social workers, aware of their inability to intervene in cases where children really are at risk, compensate for that failure by intervening in families where they are obviously safe.There is no doubt that those two bad practices are connected. The resources of social work departments are, as directors of those departments frequently point out, strictly limited. Time spent investigating parents who do not threaten or endanger the children in their care is time not spent investigating, visiting or intervening in the cases where there is a threat. If genuinely at-risk children are to be protected, resources have to be targeted at cases where parents pose a clear and present danger.It is, in a literal sense, true that social workers do not know what they are doing. That is not their fault. Government “advice” on what they should do is, quite correctly, centred on ensuring that children are protected from “significant harm”. But, in all the many hundreds of pages that both Labour and Conservative governments have issued on when social workers should intervene, the notion of “significant harm” has never been defined in a meaningful and precise way. The result is that it is left to officials to interpret the term as they see fit. And that means “significant harm” has as many interpretations as there are social workers: one can conclude that a child whose parents are violent drug-addicts is not at risk of “significant harm”, while another can claim that a parent who “plays too often and too long” with her is so dangerous that the child should be taken into care.The first step the Government needs to take in order to stop this malpractice is properly to define the notion of “significant harm”. That will not prevent fatal misjudgments being made. But it will make those misjudgments less likely. It will save the lives of many children, and also prevent forcible removal from parents who love them and protect them, and who would provide them with a far better start in life than the dismal future that awaits those who are taken into state care. It will also make it possible for the inquiries and inspections that take place after a child dies to say something useful, instead of merely reporting (as they do at present) that “no one was to blame”. So long as inspectors do not work with a clear and fixed notion of “significant harm”, they are in exactly the same position as social workers: they cannot identify the kinds of practice that they ought to prevent.Ed Balls, the Children’s Secretary, has insisted that he will take steps to end social services’ persistent failure to protect seriously at-risk children. He will fail unless he gives clear guidance on what social workers should be doing – and he can only do that by defining the notion of “significant harm.” We await his proposals.

Domestic Violence And The Courts

1
Children Act 1989
You and your ex are equally valuable parents.
Your ex could even become the main carer. Parenting history doesn’t matter.
HMICA 20051
If you turn to the courts for help, there’s a good chance
Cafcass will be unsympathetic, and pressurise you to agree contact.
Ministry of Justice, Sept 20082
Even if you have serious concerns about your ex’s violence, contact is likely to be granted.
Children and Adoption Act, Dec 2008
If you do not support contact you may be ordered to attend parenting classes.
Your ex won’t have to.
You might also have to pay his costs. Financial abuse by ex partner not relevant.
The injustice never ends.
The abuse never ends.
It’s the law.
Supporting mothers before, during and after parental separation and divorce
supporting mothers before, during and after parental separation and divorce
Response to Government Consultation paper
Together we can end violence against women and girls
30th
April 2009
Maypole is a new organisation supporting women involved in separation and divorce.
We therefore focus on domestic violence in the context of women separating from the fathers of
their children, and their experiences of parenting after separation.
The new Maypole web site http://www.maypole.org.uk will be launched May 2009. The site includes a
large section of evidence based information about domestic violence and separation3.
The accompanying poster is a hypothetical one, alerting mothers to the fact that separating from
their partner may not end the abuse. The Children Act 1989, and its interpretation and
implementation, play a significant role in the opportunity for abusive fathers to continue to abuse
their children and ex partners after separation (see below). There are therefore no easy choices
for women wanting to leave an abusive relationship.
For further information please contact: ask@maypole.org.uk
Separation and domestic violence
There is a strong link between separation, domestic violence and the long term safety of mothers
and their children, because:
domestic abuse is a major cause of relationship breakdown
separation is recognised as one of the main trigger points for abuse
domestic abuse can continue, and even increase, after separation
the most common ways abusive men continue to abuse their ex partners is by child
contact and money
abuse can damage the mother child relationship
abuse can disadvantage women in residency and contact disputes
How common is domestic abuse in separating couples?
A number of research studies have found that domestic violence is a major factor in relationship
breakdown 4. A Government report showed that allegations of domestic violence occurred in as
many as 90% of separating couples who turn to the family courts to resolve disputes about
residency and contact5.
This figure must be considered with other research that shows that:
women are more likely to experience domestic violence than men, and their experiences
6
involve more serious incidents of abuse
women are more likely to under report domestic violence than they are to make false
allegations7
8
a common abusive tactic is for the abuser to accuse the victim of abuse
There are therefore indications that the majority of cases in family court procedures involve
families in which there is a history of domestic violence against the mother.
The risk of domestic abuse increases at the time of separation. It can be particularly difficult for a
woman to escape an abusive relationship if she is required to encourage contact between her
children and an abusive ex partner.
Why is domestic abuse common at separation?
Domestic abuse is defined as the misuse of power and control, usually by a man over his female
partner. Abusive men are often possessive and retaliatory in nature.
The end of an abusive relationship, especially if it is initiated by the woman, signifies the loss of
the man’s ability to control his partner. An increase in abusive tactics is therefore an attempt by
some men to punish their partner, and to reinstate ownership and control over her.
Abusive fathers after separation
As a relationship ends, child contact can become the only means left to an abusive father to
control his ex partner, and continue the abuse. Research has shown that, for many men who have
a history of abuse towards the mother, caring for the child is not the main motivation in the pursuit
of contact9.
Research has also shown that continuing violence towards the mother increases the risk that
children will be abused during contact visits10 .
The tendency of abusive fathers to put their own needs before their children’s means that some
will insist on contact even when they know their children are frightened of them11 .
Abusive fathers are more likely than non abusive fathers to apply for residency of their children 12 .
As well as enabling them to continue the abuse, a desire for residency or contact can be motivated
by:
financial gain, eg to obtain a greater share of joint equity or avoid child support
the abuser’s distorted perception of his ex partner’s and his own parenting skills
In considering residency and contact claims, the following should be of significant weight in
considering the best interests of mother and child:
the father’s history of caring skills and commitment
allegations of abuse by the mother
the father’s reasons for wanting to change his level of involvement
Residency and contact should be dependent on responsible parenting. Because children’s safety
lies with their non-abusive parent, responsible parenting must include genuine respect for the
mother, her parenting role, and the mother child relationship.
How abusive fathers use their children to continue abuse after separation
Common tactics13 include:
shaping the child(ren)’s view of their mother
lack of boundaries (including lack of routine, supervision, safety and care)
being competitive with the mother
forcing the child to withdraw, reject, harass or abuse their mother
financial control, eg
o
withholding joint money or child support
o
bartering child contact with financial assets or child support
threatening to apply, or applying, for increased contact or residency
These behaviours, when occurring as a pattern of undermining and controlling behaviour, can
create severe psychological distress for mother and child(ren), undermine a mother’s ability to
parent to her best capacity, and weaken the child(ren)’s relationship with the parent who is most
able to meet their needs14. The stresses on women sharing care with emotionally abusive and
controlling ex partners can be debilitating, yet these difficulties, and the effects on children, are
largely invisible to professionals and policy makers.
Research is urgently needed on the realities for women of living with continuing emotional abuse
after separation.
Are abusive fathers granted residency or contact?
Yes15. Courts act on a presumption of contact, assuming that contact with both parents is almost
always beneficial to the child, even when there is a history of abuse. A detailed study of contact
applications filed in 2004 found in 60% of cases where the resident parent opposed contact,
because of ‘serious welfare issues’ (the greatest proportion of which involved allegations of
domestic violence and child abuse), staying or unsupervised contact was granted 16 .
Domestic abuse can have far reaching, negative effects on mothering and family dynamics, and
these, combined with the use of abusive tactics17 in court, and a family court system which is
inadequately trained in understanding abuse18, means that abusive fathers can gain advantages in
19
court .
Providing an opportunity for abusive men to claim residency and contact through law is
inappropriate, endangering women and children, and is a poor use of resources.
Mismatch between legal ideology and reality of parenting roles
The Children Act 1989, on which UK family law is based, assumes that parents are equal.
However, equal parenting before separation is rare – so rare, in fact, it can be seen as an
ideological myth, rather than a reality (Eichler, 1988, writing at the time when the Children Act
1989 was formulated, noted no research studies had found couples who shared ‘truly symmetrical’
child care responsibilities20.)
Research has consistently shown that in the majority of families, it is the mother who holds the
main responsibility for the children, even when she is also employed outside the home21. Mothers
are almost always the primary care giver – a role usually negotiated and agreed by the parents
when living together.
Most couples who manage, at separation, to agree child care arrangements without the
involvement of the courts, do so by replicating previous gender roles, in which the mother
continues to take greatest responsibility for the children22 A continuation of parental roles
established when the relationship was intact therefore avoids conflict, and provides children with
stability and continuity of care.
Boyd (2003) points out that ‘genuine shared parenting after separation or divorce requires certain
conditions, which are difficult to meet, before it can succeed’. The most important factors are good
communication and ‘parents (who) have a history of shared parenting responsibilities before they
split up’23 .
The failure to consider past parenting history, and expectations of shared care which are
inconsistent with that parenting history, means abusive behaviour often becomes invisible in the
family courts, putting women and children at risk.
The disempowerment of women in family law
Women are almost always the primary carer of their children The identity of women who have
children is deeply entwined with that of mother, and they gain a deep sense of satisfaction and
well being from their mothering role24 .
At separation fathers are able to retain their ‘status as a citizen in paid employment’ 25while the
Children Act 1989 creates a situation in which the role of the mother, as primary care giver, is
something that is ‘up for grabs’, something that can be competed for, and fought over.
The fact that a father who has not been the primary care giver, can take that role from a mother
after separation, either by applying for residency through the courts, or encouraging a child to live
with him, presents a threat to women’s identities and main role in life26 .
Current family law, which assumes a gender neutral approach, ignores the fact that women as
primary care givers are usually the psychological parent to children, and an enforced change in
residency is ‘unfair to the mother and potentially harmful to the child’27 .
Anecdotally, many women live with the fear of losing their children to their ex partners, and their
role as primary care giver, for years after separation. Fear is a major factor in abuse against
28
women .
To take the role of primary care giver from a woman, without her consent, and without providing
emotional support or an alternative identity, is a deeply traumatic experience29 .
When shared care occurs, mothers usually continuing to have greatest responsibility for child care,
but with an obligation to consult with her ex partner on certain matters, at least some of which he
may have previously been happy to delegate to her.
The Children Act 1989 therefore creates a situation which increases men’s power over women.
Domestic abuse is defined as the ‘misuse of power and control’. Research and government
statistics suggest that fathers with a history of abuse often turn to the family courts to assert this
power. In fact, fathers with a history of abuse could be the largest group of service users
accessing the family court system.
The family court system becomes, for many women, a continuation of the abuse they have
experienced in their relationship. The law does not allow women and their children to escape
domestic violence.
Listening to mothers
Emotional abuse is frequently reported as both the most common type of abuse, and the most
damaging. Yet emotional abuse leaves no trace, and is easily ignored by professionals. Domestic
violence can never be properly addressed until emotional abuse is understood and managed.
Women’s accounts are the evidence. Women are the experts, and professionals must respect,
and learn from, women.
Courts frequently make orders supporting contact between the father and child which disregard
mothers’ concerns about their own, and their children’s, safety. In a review of over 300 cases in
2008, in which contact was sought (mostly by non resident fathers), serious welfare issues were
raised by the resident parent (mainly mothers) in 63% of all cases, yet direct contact was only
refused in 21% of cases30 .
‘American research has shown that women tend to report what has occurred accurately, with
accounts that remain consistent over time and in response to interrelated interview questions,
together with evidence from hospital and arrest records to substantiate their stories’31 .
Listening to women ‘is also important because women are the only ones who can say whether
they are still living in fear, even if the actual violence has stopped’32 .
A woman’s estimate of the level of risk has been shown to be the ‘single strongest predictor of
future violence by a batterer33 .
Studies confirm that women report adversely affects on their children when contact with an
34
abusive father is enforced.
Court decisions granting contact between a father and child, where there is a history of poor
parental responsibility or care, builds up paternal expectations, while expecting mothers to act in
ways which, in their view, are contrary to the child’s best interests. The resulting conflict, danger
and distress is a consequence of working against, rather than with, conventional maternal roles
and social norms, in which mothers are almost always the primary care giver and psychological
parent to the child.
Contact decisions are much more likely to be supported by mothers if their concerns are listened
to, respected, and incorporated into a contact plan which manages, rather than ignores, welfare
issues.
Understanding the link between abuse to the mother and risk to the children
In a detailed study of child protection work, Farmer and Owen (1995) found ‘the children with the
worst outcomes were especially likely to have mothers who were being abused by their male
partners, although the domestic violence tended to be ignored by the professionals involved’35 .
Bancroft and Silverman (2002), and others, express concern that some court evaluators do not
appreciate the risk of murder of children by an abusive father. ‘Where children have been killed,
the significance of violence to the mothers as an indicator of potential risk to the children has
tended not to be understood or acknowledged36 .
Financial disempowerment
At separation, a father, through paid employment, has ‘access to resources and benefits which go
with this status’ while the mother is ‘unlikely to have a well paid, secure job; indeed, she may not
be in the labour market at all … she cannot hope to become a self sufficient, independent citizen
for several years … she remains extremely economically vulnerable37’.
Women who have experienced domestic violence are most vulnerable, as they may have been
prevented from working, or gaining financial independence. Financial abuse may have occurred
during the relationship, and at separation. Residency and contact claims can be a form of financial
abuse, removing from the mother, who is already in a weak financial position, access to child
related state benefits.
Mothers need to retain access to child related state benefits. The current system of measuring
primary care by the number of nights a child spends with each parent leaves women open to
financial abuse by ex partners.
When fathers gain residency at separation, the courts’ concentration on providing a home for the
child means financial abuse by the father is often ignored. Financial abuse should be considered
as illegal as rape within marriage, and should be of primary concern to the courts.
Mothers also need, and deserve, support in re-establishing themselves in paid employment at a
level commensurate with their abilities, training and experience.
Lack of equity in assessing and supporting parental skills
A very common complaint is that mothers and fathers’ parenting skills are assessed to different
standards. Professionals can be ‘very optimistic about men’s parenting skills, while scrutinizing
women’s parenting in much greater detail’38. These double standards and lax attitude to fathers’
parenting skills victimise women and endanger children; fathers need to be able to provide
evidence of consistent, sustained, responsible parenting before contact is granted.
Even when men are abusive, professionals tend to focus on the need for the woman to change39 .
‘Women’s efforts to manage violent men and their difficulty in escaping violence must be
understood in the wider context of a moral climate that places responbsibility for family problems
on women’40 .
Using force to change parenting roles
Successful shared parenting relies on trust, respect and constructive communication between
parents. A mutual dedication to the concept of shared parenting is essential. Parents who cannot
agree – and find themselves in court -are the very parents for whom the philosophy of shared
parenting has already failed. An enforced order ignores the necessity for an internal belief in the
benefits of shared care, and voluntary co-operation. Enforced orders are therefore likely to cause
distress, and even trauma, both to the primary care giver and her children. In many cases,
enforced co-parenting will be a contradictory and meaninglessness concept, as the causes of
resistance are not addressed.
Punitive approaches, particularly in the context of limited resources and research, put many
women, and their children, at risk. Intervention which is ‘unwilling to understand (women’s) needs
see them only as mothers, partners or recipients who have failed to take responsibility’ puts
women ‘in danger of being re-victimised’41 .
Recent provisions for enforcing contact (Children Act, Dec 2008) is an example of an approach
that pays no attention to the needs of mothers. For a detailed explanation of the challenges facing
women in promoting contact see http://www.maypole.org.uk/separation and divorce/ your children/ when
mothers do not support contact.
Psychological needs of mothers ignored
‘Studies have repeatedly revealed social workers’ tendency to focus narrowly on the children, to
the detriment of women’s safety and sometimes of children’s safety, because the danger to
children from a man who abuses his partner is not recognised42’.
The Children Act 1989 ignores the psychological needs of all mothers. A mother is expected to
‘give up her ‘special’ relationship (for the sake of the children) and hence her status as primary
carer. But she must also amend her status as a dependent, earn enough money to support herself
and (in part) the children, accrue benefits against the exigencies of illness and old age, and
become autonomous and self sufficient … In this process she is unlikely to have much support
from The Children Act, the legal profession or the mediation services, none of whom give priority
to, or even much consideration to, the needs of mothers’43 .
The emphasis on the welfare of the child, and contact with fathers, profoundly devalues mothering:
‘It is extremely hard for women to be mothers and (paid) workers … if mothers give up these rights
in order to meet the welfare of their children, it seems a hard lesson to insist that this was an
irrelevant sacrifice at the point when they divorce, especially as the routes back into (the benefits
of paid employment) are so limited. The active pursuit – by family law-of equal, joint parenting
after divorce combined with welfare and employment policies which make equal joint parenting
during marriage virtually impossible for the majority, gives rise to a form of disenfranchisement of
motherhood’44 .
Contact and residency arrangements need to reflect parenting roles adopted before separation.
Women’s attempts to protect their status as primary care taker, in the absence of legal protection,
can hinder mothers from facilitating contact45. The current system ignores women’s special
contribution to child care and subsequent psychological and financial vulnerability.
Women who have experienced abuse and have children are likely to lose the most at separation.
They can, and do, lose their mental health, self worth, career and home. Women can also lose
their children to abusive men, and with them their main identity and role in life.
Government statistics suggest that approximately 700,000 children in the UK were living with a
lone father, or father and step mother, in 2006. HM Revenue and Customs recorded 7,529,00
families claiming child benefit in August 2007, and calculated that approximately 7% of claimants
were male. This equates to 527,079 fathers recorded as the main carer of their child(ren).
It is difficult to estimate how many mothers this involves, as a mother may live with one or more of
her children whilst one or more live apart from her, and these figures include widowed fathers. It is
also impossible to estimate how many mothers have chosen to be apart from their children
voluntarily. Narratives from mothers who have lost contact with their children at or after separation
include vocabulary that indicates they have all have experienced domestic violence46. The belief
that their ex partners were actually ‘aided and abetted’ by Cafcass, ie Cafcass failed to identify
abuse and actually supported the father’s claim, is a common theme47 .
It is not known how many women are affected, but a conservative estimate puts the number in the
high hundreds, and possibly thousands48. This is consistent with Child Benefit statistics, above. It
is also consistent with the HMICA report (2005) which found that ‘the nature of domestic abuse is
not sufficiently understood by most CAFCASS practitioners. Routine ways of working do not
assess risk and some are dangerous’49 .
This could mean that thousands of children have lost contact with their primary care giver, and
now live in the sole care of an abusive father.
Isolation of victims is a common abusive tactic. Mothers who have lost contact with their children
suffer the worst type of isolation, and live with on-going bereavement. Because women usually
have an especially close psychological connection with their children, their trauma is particularly
acute. Their children are also isolated from the parent who is most able to meet their needs.
Maypole calls for a review of all cases where Cafcass have failed to identify domestic violence and
protect women and children, as evidenced by the HMICA report 2005.
Understanding of how domestic violence presents, and the effects on family dynamics, must be
urgently improved, to protect women and children.
Meeting the needs of children
The needs of mothers, fathers, and their children, are diverse, and can be contradictory. The rights
of fathers, and the benefit of paternal care, has dominated recent discourse in finding solutions to
family breakdown.
McBean (1987),writing just before the introduction of The Children Act (1989), notes that ‘fathers
have rarely been the prime caretakers of the children, and therefore rarely the main psychological
parents of children. The disruption of the bond between the psychological parent and child should
50
be avoided in the best interests of the child’.
Continuing contact with both parents is only one of several factors which contribute to good
outcomes for children. Many researchers believe the well being of a child’s primary care giver is
inseparable from the needs of the child51 .
There is growing awareness that the rights of some parents to have contact with their children
have been prioritised before safety 52 .
Mothers’ concerns are often not taken seriously by the courts53. Either women are not being
believed, or the risk of harm to the mother and her child(ren) is not fully understood. Research
suggests both are true 54 .
This is in contrast to a belief that mothers are the best predictor of their partner, or ex partner’s,
capacity for further abuse 55 .
Women’s resources to seek protection
‘Women fleeing abuse are frequently on very low incomes, since, whatever their socio-economic
status before the violence, they commonly leave with nothing’56. Yet the majority of women leaving
abusive relationships will not qualify for legal aid. Some mothers have spent tens of thousands of
pounds seeking protection from abusive partners in the family courts57. This has serious
implications for their ability to recover from the abuse, and provide an adequate standard of living
for their children. Women should not have to fund their own protection from abuse. The situation is
particularly dire as women invariably fail to gain the protection through the courts they feel they
need.
How children’s coping strategies to abuse can cause them to reject their mother
Cafcass can place great emphasis on the preferences of older children. However, children’s
strategies in coping with abuse can sometimes cause them to distance themselves emotionally
from their mother, and form an apparent closer bond with the abusive parent.
Until this phenomenon is understood, and incorporated into practice, court evaluators will fail to
make accurate assessments of children’s needs.
Coping strategies include ‘siding with their father, including sometimes joining in with the abuse of
58 59
the mother’and expressing anger and aggression towards her.
Children can find to very difficult to identify and express their own needs: ‘the batterer’s tendency
to be retaliatory has important implications for children who disclose abuse to outsiders’60 .
The effects of domestic abuse on family relationships is highly complex. Accurate evaluations
cannot be made until the level of training and monitoring is significantly improved. For more
information on how domestic violence can damage the mother child relationship see
http://www.maypole.org.uk/ separation ad divorce/ domestic violence/ damage to the mother child
relationship.
Mothers’ recovery from abuse
The parenting skills of mothers who have been abused often improve significantly after
61 62
separationif they are able to escape the abuser’s ‘chronic undermining’and recover from
abuse induced trauma. Shared care with an abusive ex partner does not allow women to recover
from abuse. This also has implications for their children.
Improved training
Domestic violence, and how it affects family dynamics, is highly complex. Training is utterly
inadequate – many professionals working with families receive training which briefly summarises
the four types of domestic violence, and then concentrates on child abuse. The link from protecting
the mother to safeguarding is often absent.
With this level of training, failure to identify abuse, and errors in assessment, will happen
frequently. The detail of knowledge needed for professionals, including court evaluators, is found
in The Batterer as Parent, by Lundy Bancroft. The book is based on clinical experience working
with over 2000 abusive men and their partners, and comprehensive review of research. Although
American, the information is highly relevant to the UK, and accurately reflects many women’s
experiences in the UK family courts.
The detail provided by Bancroft includes an in depth account of:
characteristics of men who abuse
the abuser’s parenting style
the abuser’s impact on family relationships
motivations of abusive fathers in seeking residency and contact
tactics used by abusive men in court disputes
factors disadvantaging women in court disputes
factors which should be considered in assessing risk to children
how to identify permanent change in an abuser
recommendations to improve court evaluators’ practice
recommendations to therapists working with children exposed to domestic violence
This level of knowledge should be mandatory for all court evaluators, and expert witnesses.
Monitoring of Cafcass officers’ ability to implement training is also urgently needed.
Improved use of resources
The amount of time allocated to Cafcass officers to manage each case is totally inadequate when
abuse is alleged or suspected. Too few resources are spent on too many cases. Assessing abuse
in sufficient detail during family disputes in court is very time consuming.
The majority of mothers want their child(ren) to have a meaningful relationship with their father,
and actively promote contact63 but mothers need to trust their ex partner, and know their children
are safe.
By providing a family law system in which primary care giving is protected, and mothers are seen
as the experts on what contact is safe for their children, many cases can be dealt with more
efficiently, and indeed not come to the attention of the courts at all.
References
1 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005
2 Outcomes for applications to court for contact orders after parental separation and divorce, J
Hunt and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, Ministry of Justice, September
2008
3 References are kept to a minimum on the web site to ensure the information is user friendly to all
women. The same information, with greater details and full references, will be available in our
information leaflets, currently under development.
4 Walby 2004, Cockett and Tripp 1994, from Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin
and H Abrahams, 2000; Child Custody and Domestic Violence, P Jaffe, N Lemon and S Poisson,
2003, FLPAG, 2001
5 Domestic Violence Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005.
6 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000, British Crime Survey,
Walby and Allen, 2004
7 Dominy and Radford 1996, from Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester
2006 Yearnshaw, 1997. A study of over 2000 divorce cases in the US found that less than 2%
involved false allegations of abuse’ (Thoennes and Tjaden 1991, from Mothering Through
Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester, 2006).
8 The Batterrer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002
9 Radford and Hester, 2006, from Making an Impact, Children and Domestic Violence, M Hester, C
Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2007.
10 Hester and Pearson, 1996, from Making an Impact, Children and Domestic Violence, M Hester,
C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2007.
11 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000.
12 Mcmahon and Pence 1995, Liss and Stahly 1993, from Bancroft and Silverman, 2002.
13 Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester 2006; Bancroft and Silverman
2002.
14 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002.
15 Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt
and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, University of Oxford, 2008; The
Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002 (US accounts, but UK situations comparable);
personal conversations, anecdotal accounts and Portraits of Mothers Apart
16 Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt
and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, University of Oxford, 2008.
17 Including manipulation, denial, and victim blaming.
18 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005.
19 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002.
20 Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003
21 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
22 Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003
23 Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003
24 The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood, S Hays, 1996
25 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
26 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
27
McBean, quoted in Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003
28 British Crime Survey, Walby and Allen, 2004
29 What are the experiences of women living apart from their children?, J Heathcote-Osborne,
2008
30 Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt
and A Macleod, 2008
31 Gondolf 1998, from Is Anyone Listening? G Hague, A Mullender and R Aris, 2003
32 Is Anyone Listening? G Hague, A Mullender and R Aris, 2003
33 Weisz et al 2000, from Bancroft and Silverman, 2002
34 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
35 Quoted from from Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
36 James 1994, O’Hara 1994, Saunders 2004, from Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N
Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
37
The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
38 Hester and Radford 1996. Similar findings by Farmer and Owen 1995, Jaffe et al 2003
39 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
40 Dobash et al 2000, quoted in Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H
Abrahams, 2000
41 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
42 Is Anyone Listening? G Hague, A Mullender and R Aris, 2003
43 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
44 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
45 Children and their Families, Liz Trinder, 2003
46 Source approx 20 mothers; personal conversations, anecdotal accounts and Portraits of
47 Narratatives of mothers, as above.
48 Statistics from MATCH, supporting mothers apart from their children, who have a rolling
membership of approx 250, with many members saying they did not know of the organisation’s
existence. MATCH calculates that approximately 70% of their members have lost contact due to
Parental Alienation Syndrome. Narratives from many of these mothers indicate that their
experiences are in fact domestic violence, see ref 44
49 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005
50 Quoted in Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003
51 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002
52 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005.
53 Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt
and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, University of Oxford, 2008.
54 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005; Outcomes of applications to
court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre
for Family Law and Policy, University of Oxford, 2008.
55 Cafcass Domestic Violence Toolkit, 2007.
56 Is Anyone Listening? G Hague, A Mullender and R Aris, 2003
57 Personal accounts, Maypole
58 Hilton 1992, Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester, 2006
59 Abrahams 1994, Saunders et al 1995, from Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford
and M Hester, 2006
60 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002
61 Schechter and Edleson 1998, Holden et al 1998, Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L
Radford and M Hester, 2006
62 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002
63 Perry 1992, Laing 1999, from Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003

1 Children Act 1989 You and your ex are equally valuable parents. Your ex could even become the main carer. Parenting history doesn’t matter. HMICA 20051 If you turn to the courts for help, there’s a good chance Cafcass will be unsympathetic, and pressurise you to agree contact. Ministry of Justice, Sept 20082 Even if you have serious concerns about your ex’s violence, contact is likely to be granted. Children and Adoption Act, Dec 2008 If you do not support contact you may be ordered to attend parenting classes. Your ex won’t have to. You might also have to pay his costs. Financial abuse by ex partner not relevant. The injustice never ends. The abuse never ends. It’s the law. © Maypole 2009 http://www.maypole.org.uk Supporting mothers before, during and after parental separation and divorce  supporting mothers before, during and after parental separation and divorce
http://www.maypole.org.uk
Response to Government Consultation paper Together we can end violence against women and girls 30th
April 2009
Maypole is a new organisation supporting women involved in separation and divorce.
We therefore focus on domestic violence in the context of women separating from the fathers of their children, and their experiences of parenting after separation.
The new Maypole web site http://www.maypole.org.uk will be launched May 2009. The site includes a large section of evidence based information about domestic violence and separation3.
The accompanying poster is a hypothetical one, alerting mothers to the fact that separating from their partner may not end the abuse. The Children Act 1989, and its interpretation and implementation, play a significant role in the opportunity for abusive fathers to continue to abuse their children and ex partners after separation (see below). There are therefore no easy choices for women wanting to leave an abusive relationship.
For further information please contact: ask@maypole.org.uk
Separation and domestic violence
There is a strong link between separation, domestic violence and the long term safety of mothers and their children, because:
• domestic abuse is a major cause of relationship breakdown • separation is recognised as one of the main trigger points for abuse • domestic abuse can continue, and even increase, after separation • the most common ways abusive men continue to abuse their ex partners is by child contact and money • abuse can damage the mother child relationship • abuse can disadvantage women in residency and contact disputes How common is domestic abuse in separating couples?
A number of research studies have found that domestic violence is a major factor in relationship breakdown 4. A Government report showed that allegations of domestic violence occurred in as many as 90% of separating couples who turn to the family courts to resolve disputes about residency and contact5.
This figure must be considered with other research that shows that:
• women are more likely to experience domestic violence than men, and their experiences 6
involve more serious incidents of abuse
• women are more likely to under report domestic violence than they are to make false allegations7 8
• a common abusive tactic is for the abuser to accuse the victim of abuse There are therefore indications that the majority of cases in family court procedures involve families in which there is a history of domestic violence against the mother.
The risk of domestic abuse increases at the time of separation. It can be particularly difficult for a woman to escape an abusive relationship if she is required to encourage contact between her children and an abusive ex partner.
Why is domestic abuse common at separation?
Domestic abuse is defined as the misuse of power and control, usually by a man over his female partner. Abusive men are often possessive and retaliatory in nature.
The end of an abusive relationship, especially if it is initiated by the woman, signifies the loss of the man’s ability to control his partner. An increase in abusive tactics is therefore an attempt by some men to punish their partner, and to reinstate ownership and control over her.
Abusive fathers after separation
As a relationship ends, child contact can become the only means left to an abusive father to control his ex partner, and continue the abuse. Research has shown that, for many men who have a history of abuse towards the mother, caring for the child is not the main motivation in the pursuit of contact9.
Research has also shown that continuing violence towards the mother increases the risk that children will be abused during contact visits10 .
The tendency of abusive fathers to put their own needs before their children’s means that some will insist on contact even when they know their children are frightened of them11 .
Abusive fathers are more likely than non abusive fathers to apply for residency of their children 12 . As well as enabling them to continue the abuse, a desire for residency or contact can be motivated by:
• financial gain, eg to obtain a greater share of joint equity or avoid child support • the abuser’s distorted perception of his ex partner’s and his own parenting skills In considering residency and contact claims, the following should be of significant weight in considering the best interests of mother and child:
• the father’s history of caring skills and commitment • allegations of abuse by the mother • the father’s reasons for wanting to change his level of involvement Residency and contact should be dependent on responsible parenting. Because children’s safety lies with their non-abusive parent, responsible parenting must include genuine respect for the mother, her parenting role, and the mother child relationship.
How abusive fathers use their children to continue abuse after separation
Common tactics13 include:
• shaping the child(ren)’s view of their mother • lack of boundaries (including lack of routine, supervision, safety and care) • being competitive with the mother • forcing the child to withdraw, reject, harass or abuse their mother • financial control, eg o withholding joint money or child support o bartering child contact with financial assets or child support • threatening to apply, or applying, for increased contact or residency These behaviours, when occurring as a pattern of undermining and controlling behaviour, can create severe psychological distress for mother and child(ren), undermine a mother’s ability to parent to her best capacity, and weaken the child(ren)’s relationship with the parent who is most
able to meet their needs14. The stresses on women sharing care with emotionally abusive and controlling ex partners can be debilitating, yet these difficulties, and the effects on children, are largely invisible to professionals and policy makers.
Research is urgently needed on the realities for women of living with continuing emotional abuse after separation.
Are abusive fathers granted residency or contact?
Yes15. Courts act on a presumption of contact, assuming that contact with both parents is almost always beneficial to the child, even when there is a history of abuse. A detailed study of contact applications filed in 2004 found in 60% of cases where the resident parent opposed contact, because of ‘serious welfare issues’ (the greatest proportion of which involved allegations of domestic violence and child abuse), staying or unsupervised contact was granted 16 .
Domestic abuse can have far reaching, negative effects on mothering and family dynamics, and these, combined with the use of abusive tactics17 in court, and a family court system which is inadequately trained in understanding abuse18, means that abusive fathers can gain advantages in
19
court .
Providing an opportunity for abusive men to claim residency and contact through law is inappropriate, endangering women and children, and is a poor use of resources.
Mismatch between legal ideology and reality of parenting roles
The Children Act 1989, on which UK family law is based, assumes that parents are equal. However, equal parenting before separation is rare – so rare, in fact, it can be seen as an ideological myth, rather than a reality (Eichler, 1988, writing at the time when the Children Act 1989 was formulated, noted no research studies had found couples who shared ‘truly symmetrical’ child care responsibilities20.)
Research has consistently shown that in the majority of families, it is the mother who holds the main responsibility for the children, even when she is also employed outside the home21. Mothers are almost always the primary care giver – a role usually negotiated and agreed by the parents when living together.
Most couples who manage, at separation, to agree child care arrangements without the involvement of the courts, do so by replicating previous gender roles, in which the mother continues to take greatest responsibility for the children22 A continuation of parental roles established when the relationship was intact therefore avoids conflict, and provides children with stability and continuity of care.
Boyd (2003) points out that ‘genuine shared parenting after separation or divorce requires certain conditions, which are difficult to meet, before it can succeed’. The most important factors are good communication and ‘parents (who) have a history of shared parenting responsibilities before they split up’23 .
The failure to consider past parenting history, and expectations of shared care which are inconsistent with that parenting history, means abusive behaviour often becomes invisible in the family courts, putting women and children at risk.
The disempowerment of women in family law
Women are almost always the primary carer of their children The identity of women who have children is deeply entwined with that of mother, and they gain a deep sense of satisfaction and well being from their mothering role24 .
At separation fathers are able to retain their ‘status as a citizen in paid employment’ 25while the Children Act 1989 creates a situation in which the role of the mother, as primary care giver, is something that is ‘up for grabs’, something that can be competed for, and fought over.
The fact that a father who has not been the primary care giver, can take that role from a mother after separation, either by applying for residency through the courts, or encouraging a child to live with him, presents a threat to women’s identities and main role in life26 .
Current family law, which assumes a gender neutral approach, ignores the fact that women as primary care givers are usually the psychological parent to children, and an enforced change in residency is ‘unfair to the mother and potentially harmful to the child’27 .
Anecdotally, many women live with the fear of losing their children to their ex partners, and their role as primary care giver, for years after separation. Fear is a major factor in abuse against
28
women .
To take the role of primary care giver from a woman, without her consent, and without providing emotional support or an alternative identity, is a deeply traumatic experience29 .
When shared care occurs, mothers usually continuing to have greatest responsibility for child care, but with an obligation to consult with her ex partner on certain matters, at least some of which he may have previously been happy to delegate to her.
The Children Act 1989 therefore creates a situation which increases men’s power over women. Domestic abuse is defined as the ‘misuse of power and control’. Research and government statistics suggest that fathers with a history of abuse often turn to the family courts to assert this power. In fact, fathers with a history of abuse could be the largest group of service users accessing the family court system.
The family court system becomes, for many women, a continuation of the abuse they have experienced in their relationship. The law does not allow women and their children to escape domestic violence.
Listening to mothers
Emotional abuse is frequently reported as both the most common type of abuse, and the most damaging. Yet emotional abuse leaves no trace, and is easily ignored by professionals. Domestic violence can never be properly addressed until emotional abuse is understood and managed. Women’s accounts are the evidence. Women are the experts, and professionals must respect, and learn from, women.
Courts frequently make orders supporting contact between the father and child which disregard mothers’ concerns about their own, and their children’s, safety. In a review of over 300 cases in 2008, in which contact was sought (mostly by non resident fathers), serious welfare issues were raised by the resident parent (mainly mothers) in 63% of all cases, yet direct contact was only refused in 21% of cases30 .
‘American research has shown that women tend to report what has occurred accurately, with accounts that remain consistent over time and in response to interrelated interview questions, together with evidence from hospital and arrest records to substantiate their stories’31 .
Listening to women ‘is also important because women are the only ones who can say whether they are still living in fear, even if the actual violence has stopped’32 .
A woman’s estimate of the level of risk has been shown to be the ‘single strongest predictor of future violence by a batterer33 .
Studies confirm that women report adversely affects on their children when contact with an
34
abusive father is enforced.
Court decisions granting contact between a father and child, where there is a history of poor parental responsibility or care, builds up paternal expectations, while expecting mothers to act in ways which, in their view, are contrary to the child’s best interests. The resulting conflict, danger and distress is a consequence of working against, rather than with, conventional maternal roles
and social norms, in which mothers are almost always the primary care giver and psychological parent to the child.
Contact decisions are much more likely to be supported by mothers if their concerns are listened to, respected, and incorporated into a contact plan which manages, rather than ignores, welfare issues.
Understanding the link between abuse to the mother and risk to the children
In a detailed study of child protection work, Farmer and Owen (1995) found ‘the children with the worst outcomes were especially likely to have mothers who were being abused by their male partners, although the domestic violence tended to be ignored by the professionals involved’35 .
Bancroft and Silverman (2002), and others, express concern that some court evaluators do not appreciate the risk of murder of children by an abusive father. ‘Where children have been killed, the significance of violence to the mothers as an indicator of potential risk to the children has tended not to be understood or acknowledged36 .
Financial disempowerment
At separation, a father, through paid employment, has ‘access to resources and benefits which go with this status’ while the mother is ‘unlikely to have a well paid, secure job; indeed, she may not be in the labour market at all … she cannot hope to become a self sufficient, independent citizen for several years … she remains extremely economically vulnerable37’.
Women who have experienced domestic violence are most vulnerable, as they may have been prevented from working, or gaining financial independence. Financial abuse may have occurred during the relationship, and at separation. Residency and contact claims can be a form of financial abuse, removing from the mother, who is already in a weak financial position, access to child related state benefits.
Mothers need to retain access to child related state benefits. The current system of measuring primary care by the number of nights a child spends with each parent leaves women open to financial abuse by ex partners.
When fathers gain residency at separation, the courts’ concentration on providing a home for the child means financial abuse by the father is often ignored. Financial abuse should be considered as illegal as rape within marriage, and should be of primary concern to the courts.
Mothers also need, and deserve, support in re-establishing themselves in paid employment at a level commensurate with their abilities, training and experience.
Lack of equity in assessing and supporting parental skills
A very common complaint is that mothers and fathers’ parenting skills are assessed to different standards. Professionals can be ‘very optimistic about men’s parenting skills, while scrutinizing women’s parenting in much greater detail’38. These double standards and lax attitude to fathers’ parenting skills victimise women and endanger children; fathers need to be able to provide evidence of consistent, sustained, responsible parenting before contact is granted.
Even when men are abusive, professionals tend to focus on the need for the woman to change39 . ‘Women’s efforts to manage violent men and their difficulty in escaping violence must be understood in the wider context of a moral climate that places responbsibility for family problems on women’40 .
Using force to change parenting roles
Successful shared parenting relies on trust, respect and constructive communication between parents. A mutual dedication to the concept of shared parenting is essential. Parents who cannot agree – and find themselves in court -are the very parents for whom the philosophy of shared parenting has already failed. An enforced order ignores the necessity for an internal belief in the benefits of shared care, and voluntary co-operation. Enforced orders are therefore likely to cause distress, and even trauma, both to the primary care giver and her children. In many cases,
enforced co-parenting will be a contradictory and meaninglessness concept, as the causes of resistance are not addressed.
Punitive approaches, particularly in the context of limited resources and research, put many women, and their children, at risk. Intervention which is ‘unwilling to understand (women’s) needs see them only as mothers, partners or recipients who have failed to take responsibility’ puts women ‘in danger of being re-victimised’41 .
Recent provisions for enforcing contact (Children Act, Dec 2008) is an example of an approach that pays no attention to the needs of mothers. For a detailed explanation of the challenges facing women in promoting contact see http://www.maypole.org.uk/separation and divorce/ your children/ when mothers do not support contact.
Psychological needs of mothers ignored
‘Studies have repeatedly revealed social workers’ tendency to focus narrowly on the children, to the detriment of women’s safety and sometimes of children’s safety, because the danger to children from a man who abuses his partner is not recognised42’.
The Children Act 1989 ignores the psychological needs of all mothers. A mother is expected to ‘give up her ‘special’ relationship (for the sake of the children) and hence her status as primary carer. But she must also amend her status as a dependent, earn enough money to support herself and (in part) the children, accrue benefits against the exigencies of illness and old age, and become autonomous and self sufficient … In this process she is unlikely to have much support from The Children Act, the legal profession or the mediation services, none of whom give priority to, or even much consideration to, the needs of mothers’43 .
The emphasis on the welfare of the child, and contact with fathers, profoundly devalues mothering:
‘It is extremely hard for women to be mothers and (paid) workers … if mothers give up these rights in order to meet the welfare of their children, it seems a hard lesson to insist that this was an irrelevant sacrifice at the point when they divorce, especially as the routes back into (the benefits of paid employment) are so limited. The active pursuit – by family law-of equal, joint parenting after divorce combined with welfare and employment policies which make equal joint parenting during marriage virtually impossible for the majority, gives rise to a form of disenfranchisement of motherhood’44 .
Contact and residency arrangements need to reflect parenting roles adopted before separation. Women’s attempts to protect their status as primary care taker, in the absence of legal protection, can hinder mothers from facilitating contact45. The current system ignores women’s special contribution to child care and subsequent psychological and financial vulnerability.
Women who have experienced abuse and have children are likely to lose the most at separation. They can, and do, lose their mental health, self worth, career and home. Women can also lose their children to abusive men, and with them their main identity and role in life.
Government statistics suggest that approximately 700,000 children in the UK were living with a lone father, or father and step mother, in 2006. HM Revenue and Customs recorded 7,529,00 families claiming child benefit in August 2007, and calculated that approximately 7% of claimants were male. This equates to 527,079 fathers recorded as the main carer of their child(ren).
It is difficult to estimate how many mothers this involves, as a mother may live with one or more of her children whilst one or more live apart from her, and these figures include widowed fathers. It is also impossible to estimate how many mothers have chosen to be apart from their children voluntarily. Narratives from mothers who have lost contact with their children at or after separation include vocabulary that indicates they have all have experienced domestic violence46. The belief that their ex partners were actually ‘aided and abetted’ by Cafcass, ie Cafcass failed to identify abuse and actually supported the father’s claim, is a common theme47 .
It is not known how many women are affected, but a conservative estimate puts the number in the high hundreds, and possibly thousands48. This is consistent with Child Benefit statistics, above. It
is also consistent with the HMICA report (2005) which found that ‘the nature of domestic abuse is not sufficiently understood by most CAFCASS practitioners. Routine ways of working do not assess risk and some are dangerous’49 .
This could mean that thousands of children have lost contact with their primary care giver, and now live in the sole care of an abusive father.
Isolation of victims is a common abusive tactic. Mothers who have lost contact with their children suffer the worst type of isolation, and live with on-going bereavement. Because women usually have an especially close psychological connection with their children, their trauma is particularly acute. Their children are also isolated from the parent who is most able to meet their needs. Maypole calls for a review of all cases where Cafcass have failed to identify domestic violence and protect women and children, as evidenced by the HMICA report 2005.
Understanding of how domestic violence presents, and the effects on family dynamics, must be urgently improved, to protect women and children.
Meeting the needs of children
The needs of mothers, fathers, and their children, are diverse, and can be contradictory. The rights of fathers, and the benefit of paternal care, has dominated recent discourse in finding solutions to family breakdown.
McBean (1987),writing just before the introduction of The Children Act (1989), notes that ‘fathers have rarely been the prime caretakers of the children, and therefore rarely the main psychological parents of children. The disruption of the bond between the psychological parent and child should
50
be avoided in the best interests of the child’.
Continuing contact with both parents is only one of several factors which contribute to good outcomes for children. Many researchers believe the well being of a child’s primary care giver is inseparable from the needs of the child51 .
There is growing awareness that the rights of some parents to have contact with their children have been prioritised before safety 52 .
Mothers’ concerns are often not taken seriously by the courts53. Either women are not being believed, or the risk of harm to the mother and her child(ren) is not fully understood. Research suggests both are true 54 .
This is in contrast to a belief that mothers are the best predictor of their partner, or ex partner’s, capacity for further abuse 55 .
Women’s resources to seek protection
‘Women fleeing abuse are frequently on very low incomes, since, whatever their socio-economic status before the violence, they commonly leave with nothing’56. Yet the majority of women leaving abusive relationships will not qualify for legal aid. Some mothers have spent tens of thousands of pounds seeking protection from abusive partners in the family courts57. This has serious implications for their ability to recover from the abuse, and provide an adequate standard of living for their children. Women should not have to fund their own protection from abuse. The situation is particularly dire as women invariably fail to gain the protection through the courts they feel they need.
How children’s coping strategies to abuse can cause them to reject their mother
Cafcass can place great emphasis on the preferences of older children. However, children’s strategies in coping with abuse can sometimes cause them to distance themselves emotionally from their mother, and form an apparent closer bond with the abusive parent.
Until this phenomenon is understood, and incorporated into practice, court evaluators will fail to make accurate assessments of children’s needs.
Coping strategies include ‘siding with their father, including sometimes joining in with the abuse of
58 59
the mother’and expressing anger and aggression towards her.
Children can find to very difficult to identify and express their own needs: ‘the batterer’s tendency to be retaliatory has important implications for children who disclose abuse to outsiders’60 .
The effects of domestic abuse on family relationships is highly complex. Accurate evaluations cannot be made until the level of training and monitoring is significantly improved. For more information on how domestic violence can damage the mother child relationship see www.maypole.org.uk/ separation ad divorce/ domestic violence/ damage to the mother child relationship.
Mothers’ recovery from abuse
The parenting skills of mothers who have been abused often improve significantly after
61 62
separationif they are able to escape the abuser’s ‘chronic undermining’and recover from abuse induced trauma. Shared care with an abusive ex partner does not allow women to recover from abuse. This also has implications for their children.
Improved training
Domestic violence, and how it affects family dynamics, is highly complex. Training is utterly inadequate – many professionals working with families receive training which briefly summarises the four types of domestic violence, and then concentrates on child abuse. The link from protecting the mother to safeguarding is often absent.
With this level of training, failure to identify abuse, and errors in assessment, will happen frequently. The detail of knowledge needed for professionals, including court evaluators, is found in The Batterer as Parent, by Lundy Bancroft. The book is based on clinical experience working with over 2000 abusive men and their partners, and comprehensive review of research. Although American, the information is highly relevant to the UK, and accurately reflects many women’s experiences in the UK family courts.
The detail provided by Bancroft includes an in depth account of:
• characteristics of men who abuse • the abuser’s parenting style • the abuser’s impact on family relationships • motivations of abusive fathers in seeking residency and contact • tactics used by abusive men in court disputes • factors disadvantaging women in court disputes • factors which should be considered in assessing risk to children • how to identify permanent change in an abuser • recommendations to improve court evaluators’ practice • recommendations to therapists working with children exposed to domestic violence This level of knowledge should be mandatory for all court evaluators, and expert witnesses. Monitoring of Cafcass officers’ ability to implement training is also urgently needed.
Improved use of resources
The amount of time allocated to Cafcass officers to manage each case is totally inadequate when abuse is alleged or suspected. Too few resources are spent on too many cases. Assessing abuse in sufficient detail during family disputes in court is very time consuming.
The majority of mothers want their child(ren) to have a meaningful relationship with their father, and actively promote contact63 but mothers need to trust their ex partner, and know their children are safe.
By providing a family law system in which primary care giving is protected, and mothers are seen as the experts on what contact is safe for their children, many cases can be dealt with more efficiently, and indeed not come to the attention of the courts at all.
References
1 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005 2 Outcomes for applications to court for contact orders after parental separation and divorce, J Hunt and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, Ministry of Justice, September 2008 3 References are kept to a minimum on the web site to ensure the information is user friendly to all women. The same information, with greater details and full references, will be available in our information leaflets, currently under development. 4 Walby 2004, Cockett and Tripp 1994, from Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000; Child Custody and Domestic Violence, P Jaffe, N Lemon and S Poisson, 2003, FLPAG, 2001 5 Domestic Violence Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005. 6 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000, British Crime Survey, Walby and Allen, 2004 7 Dominy and Radford 1996, from Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester 2006 Yearnshaw, 1997. A study of over 2000 divorce cases in the US found that less than 2% involved false allegations of abuse’ (Thoennes and Tjaden 1991, from Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester, 2006). 8 The Batterrer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002 9 Radford and Hester, 2006, from Making an Impact, Children and Domestic Violence, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2007. 10 Hester and Pearson, 1996, from Making an Impact, Children and Domestic Violence, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2007. 11 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000. 12 Mcmahon and Pence 1995, Liss and Stahly 1993, from Bancroft and Silverman, 2002. 13 Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester 2006; Bancroft and Silverman 2002. 14 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002. 15 Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, University of Oxford, 2008; The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002 (US accounts, but UK situations comparable); personal conversations, anecdotal accounts and Portraits of Mothers Apart http://www.matchmothers.org/pages/gallery.php 16 Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, University of Oxford, 2008. 17 Including manipulation, denial, and victim blaming. 18 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005. 19 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002. 20 Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003 21 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999 22 Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003 23 Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003 24 The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood, S Hays, 1996 25 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999 26 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
27
McBean, quoted in Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003 28 British Crime Survey, Walby and Allen, 2004 29 What are the experiences of women living apart from their children?, J Heathcote-Osborne, 2008 30 Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt and A Macleod, 2008 31 Gondolf 1998, from Is Anyone Listening? G Hague, A Mullender and R Aris, 2003 32 Is Anyone Listening? G Hague, A Mullender and R Aris, 2003 33 Weisz et al 2000, from Bancroft and Silverman, 2002 34 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000 35 Quoted from from Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
36 James 1994, O’Hara 1994, Saunders 2004, from Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
37
The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999 38 Hester and Radford 1996. Similar findings by Farmer and Owen 1995, Jaffe et al 2003 39 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000 40 Dobash et al 2000, quoted in Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000 41 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000 42 Is Anyone Listening? G Hague, A Mullender and R Aris, 2003 43 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999 44 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999 45 Children and their Families, Liz Trinder, 2003 46 Source approx 20 mothers; personal conversations, anecdotal accounts and Portraits of Mothers Apart http://www.matchmothers.org/pages/gallery.php 47 Narratatives of mothers, as above. 48 Statistics from MATCH, supporting mothers apart from their children, who have a rolling membership of approx 250, with many members saying they did not know of the organisation’s existence. MATCH calculates that approximately 70% of their members have lost contact due to Parental Alienation Syndrome. Narratives from many of these mothers indicate that their experiences are in fact domestic violence, see ref 44 49 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005 50 Quoted in Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003 51 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002 52 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005. 53 Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, University of Oxford, 2008. 54 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005; Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, University of Oxford, 2008. 55 Cafcass Domestic Violence Toolkit, 2007. 56 Is Anyone Listening? G Hague, A Mullender and R Aris, 2003 57 Personal accounts, Maypole 58 Hilton 1992, Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester, 2006 59 Abrahams 1994, Saunders et al 1995, from Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester, 2006 60 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002 61 Schechter and Edleson 1998, Holden et al 1998, Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester, 2006 62 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002 63 Perry 1992, Laing 1999, from Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003
© Maypole 2009 http://www.maypole.org.uk

Mothers

Mothers
There are certain things in this world of which there are only one. One sky, one ‘America’, one
body. One Sri Lankan coastline. If the tsunami takes it away, it is gone, irreplaceable. One mother.
Only one. It is a fact that cannot be disputed, cannot be changed. If we remembered, honoured and
paid tribute to this, adoption would be a very different experience.
A mother does not stop being a mother because she has no money and no support. A mother does
not stop being a mother because she is not married. A mother does not stop being a mother because
forces greater than herself rape her of her child. A mother does not stop being a mother because she
has been drugged, beaten, lied to and betrayed. A mother does not stop being a mother because in
the eyes of others, she has brought shame to bear on herself and her family.
Whatever the circumstances, she is the mother. The simplicity of this fact must be very deeply
hidden however, because this fact has been murdered. Someone has slit the throat of this fact, and
whoever it is, is not at all sorry.
Outside the world of adoption, if someone’s mother were to die, she would be grieved. No one
would replace her, no one could. In the fiction of adoption, however, she is not even allowed to
exist in the first place. She is “birth” prefixed, her job done. Similar in design to the “step” prefix,
which denotes a nominal relationship, it diminishes the mother to the same nominal, unimportant
place, with little room for emotional attachment or commitment. She is not allowed to be who she
is, the Mother. This is a heinous crime against humanity. A matri-genocide, adulated by a self
serving materialistic public. Upon this great lie has been built the global success that adoption has
become. Like the “civilian casualty” of war who is in truth, an innocent who has been cold
bloodedly murdered, the “birth” mother becomes the innocent of the adoption war. If we were to
call innocent murdered victims what they really are, war would not be so popular. This is why the
vocabulary is designed not to arouse emotions. Everyone has a mother, and to empathise with the
loss of a mother or a child is universal. To empathise with the loss of a “birth” mother or a “birth”
child is impossible, because they are replaceable commodities.
The fairy tale story of adoption could not have its place if facts were simply told. Just imagine if all
adoptees could see the names of our mothers, yes our Real Mothers on our birth certificates. We
might ask questions. We might make other people uncomfortable. We might demand to reclaim
our heritage and our birthrights. We might demand to have our original identities restored and
acknowledged.
Just think, if the Mother was allowed to be Mother. If society recognized her pain in losing her
child in the same way it does when she loses a child to Death. People might wake up and see that
adoption is not to be glorified. It is based on tragic circumstances which no one wants to admit
responsibility to. I wonder if there is an experiential difference for the mother who loses her child
to Adoption, and the one whose child dies. I imagine losing a child to death to be easier. At least
there is a conclusion, a grieving, a recognition, a helping hand, the life of the child can be honoured
and recognized. None of this is allowed in adoption. Not only does it feel as if the child is dead,
the Mother has to pretend that the child did not exist in the first place. What more cruel form of
torture can there be?
Guilty without being proven innocent, trial without jury? Relegated to “birth” mother, no one
wants to know the story. It is all understood in this five letter word. It means, the Mother has been
bad, has done something wrong. She does not deserve to be a mother, no questions asked. The
nuns said so. Society said so. Peers said so. Parents said so. So then, it must be true.
Is it a crime to be poor? Is it a crime to not be married? Is it a crime to be lied to? Is it a crime to be
beaten up, tied down and drugged so that your child can be stolen from you?
The real crimes are committed by those who cover up these atrocities. The real crimes are
committed by those who refuse to help. By those who turn a blind eye. By those who falsify the
documents, under any other circumstances an offence which can result in a prison sentence. The
real crimes are committed by those who give babies to strangers and change their names.
How can it be a crime to be a mother?
Unfortunately, it seems that in many cases, this is still so. Fortunately, we are making small steps
forward. Brave mothers are coming forward and speaking their truths. Some of us are recognizing
the grave injustices that have been done to mothers. Surprisingly little support comes from those
mothers whose motherhood has not been strangled. I believe they imagine it to be something so
horrible that those poor ones must have done something to deserve it. They cannot imagine losing
their own children, but show no shock at the “birth” mothers who lost theirs. If they were not
“birth” mothers but mothers, there might be more of an emotional connection, a deeper empathy.
Perhaps, they would ask more questions. In truth, they should be screaming for the rights of the
mothers to have their children back, simply because that is what they would want, should their own
children be kidnapped. Legally or otherwise. They should be purple with outrage. They should be
empathising from the bottom of their hearts. But because they are mere “birth” mothers, no one can
empathize. The clever insertion of this vile insult has desensitized, de-empathised everyone. There
remains, unfortunately, only judgement and condemnation.
If we allow our mothers to be who they really are, then we have to look deeper at this word game.
Who created this, and why is it so convenient? Who profits, and why? And perhaps, how do we
play the same game in other parts of our lives? Certainly, the adoption industry can profit from
“birth mothers”. Not so easy to profit from mothers. Adoptive mothers can profit, because of
course, they claim the title for themselves. For adoptees, it is maybe a symbol of our learned hatred
and brainwashing towards our mothers. We have been taught to hate and forget, and it’s easier to
hate and forget a birth mother than a mother. It teaches us that mothers are replaceable. She didn’t
want us after all, right? Wrong. Our mothers want us very deeply: however it may turn our illusion
of the world upside down, however painful it is to consider this fact, to hold this truth in our hearts,
it is the truth. Our adoptive lifestyle has not had room for this notion, but our adoptive lifestyle
ignores our genesis. The power of our creation has been extinguished. As soon as we realise –
emotionally, as well as intellectually – that our mothers were not to blame for what happened, the
sooner we are on the path to restoring the family institution and recognizing how sacred this bond
between mother and child is. There is no birth mother, this is an oxymoron. There is mother. Only
mother, and only one.
We must rid ourselves of the notion that adoption involves free choice. It is a ‘choice’ which is
imposed from the outside. It is therefore devoid of any freedom and can only be described as a
violation. True choice, freedom comes from the inside not the outside. Mothers do not ‘freely’ and
‘lovingly’ choose to ‘offer’ their children….[a better life]. It is an adoption myth. Adoption does
not listen to the mother’s heart. It turns motherhood into profit. No, it is not mothers who choose
adoption, it is adoption that chooses the mothers. It chooses those which are most vulnerable, deems
them unworthy, and robs them of their flesh and blood. A crime. By causing the rest of society to
forget who the real mother is, by causing adoptees to believe in their unwantedness, the real
mothers, the grieving mothers are left hidden and forgotten.
May we love and honour our mothers. May we rid her of the guilt she has unnecessarily and
wrongly had to carry, and may we restore her to the rightful place in our lives.
© Stephen Fitzpatrick, March 2005

Mothers

There are certain things in this world of which there are only one. One sky, one ‘America’, one body. One Sri Lankan coastline. If the tsunami takes it away, it is gone, irreplaceable. One mother. Only one. It is a fact that cannot be disputed, cannot be changed. If we remembered, honoured and paid tribute to this, adoption would be a very different experience.
A mother does not stop being a mother because she has no money and no support. A mother does not stop being a mother because she is not married. A mother does not stop being a mother because forces greater than herself rape her of her child. A mother does not stop being a mother because she has been drugged, beaten, lied to and betrayed. A mother does not stop being a mother because in the eyes of others, she has brought shame to bear on herself and her family.
Whatever the circumstances, she is the mother. The simplicity of this fact must be very deeply hidden however, because this fact has been murdered. Someone has slit the throat of this fact, and whoever it is, is not at all sorry.
Outside the world of adoption, if someone’s mother were to die, she would be grieved. No one would replace her, no one could. In the fiction of adoption, however, she is not even allowed to exist in the first place. She is “birth” prefixed, her job done. Similar in design to the “step” prefix, which denotes a nominal relationship, it diminishes the mother to the same nominal, unimportant place, with little room for emotional attachment or commitment. She is not allowed to be who she is, the Mother. This is a heinous crime against humanity. A matri-genocide, adulated by a self serving materialistic public. Upon this great lie has been built the global success that adoption has become. Like the “civilian casualty” of war who is in truth, an innocent who has been cold bloodedly murdered, the “birth” mother becomes the innocent of the adoption war. If we were to call innocent murdered victims what they really are, war would not be so popular. This is why the vocabulary is designed not to arouse emotions. Everyone has a mother, and to empathise with the loss of a mother or a child is universal. To empathise with the loss of a “birth” mother or a “birth” child is impossible, because they are replaceable commodities.
The fairy tale story of adoption could not have its place if facts were simply told. Just imagine if all adoptees could see the names of our mothers, yes our Real Mothers on our birth certificates. We might ask questions. We might make other people uncomfortable. We might demand to reclaim our heritage and our birthrights. We might demand to have our original identities restored and acknowledged.
Just think, if the Mother was allowed to be Mother. If society recognized her pain in losing her child in the same way it does when she loses a child to Death. People might wake up and see that adoption is not to be glorified. It is based on tragic circumstances which no one wants to admit responsibility to. I wonder if there is an experiential difference for the mother who loses her child to Adoption, and the one whose child dies. I imagine losing a child to death to be easier. At least there is a conclusion, a grieving, a recognition, a helping hand, the life of the child can be honoured and recognized. None of this is allowed in adoption. Not only does it feel as if the child is dead, the Mother has to pretend that the child did not exist in the first place. What more cruel form of torture can there be?
Guilty without being proven innocent, trial without jury? Relegated to “birth” mother, no one wants to know the story. It is all understood in this five letter word. It means, the Mother has been bad, has done something wrong. She does not deserve to be a mother, no questions asked. The nuns said so. Society said so. Peers said so. Parents said so. So then, it must be true.
Is it a crime to be poor? Is it a crime to not be married? Is it a crime to be lied to? Is it a crime to be beaten up, tied down and drugged so that your child can be stolen from you?
The real crimes are committed by those who cover up these atrocities. The real crimes are committed by those who refuse to help. By those who turn a blind eye. By those who falsify the documents, under any other circumstances an offence which can result in a prison sentence. The real crimes are committed by those who give babies to strangers and change their names.
How can it be a crime to be a mother?
Unfortunately, it seems that in many cases, this is still so. Fortunately, we are making small steps forward. Brave mothers are coming forward and speaking their truths. Some of us are recognizing the grave injustices that have been done to mothers. Surprisingly little support comes from those mothers whose motherhood has not been strangled. I believe they imagine it to be something so horrible that those poor ones must have done something to deserve it. They cannot imagine losing their own children, but show no shock at the “birth” mothers who lost theirs. If they were not “birth” mothers but mothers, there might be more of an emotional connection, a deeper empathy. Perhaps, they would ask more questions. In truth, they should be screaming for the rights of the mothers to have their children back, simply because that is what they would want, should their own children be kidnapped. Legally or otherwise. They should be purple with outrage. They should be empathising from the bottom of their hearts. But because they are mere “birth” mothers, no one can empathize. The clever insertion of this vile insult has desensitized, de-empathised everyone. There remains, unfortunately, only judgement and condemnation.
If we allow our mothers to be who they really are, then we have to look deeper at this word game. Who created this, and why is it so convenient? Who profits, and why? And perhaps, how do we play the same game in other parts of our lives? Certainly, the adoption industry can profit from “birth mothers”. Not so easy to profit from mothers. Adoptive mothers can profit, because of course, they claim the title for themselves. For adoptees, it is maybe a symbol of our learned hatred and brainwashing towards our mothers. We have been taught to hate and forget, and it’s easier to hate and forget a birth mother than a mother. It teaches us that mothers are replaceable. She didn’t want us after all, right? Wrong. Our mothers want us very deeply: however it may turn our illusion of the world upside down, however painful it is to consider this fact, to hold this truth in our hearts, it is the truth. Our adoptive lifestyle has not had room for this notion, but our adoptive lifestyle ignores our genesis. The power of our creation has been extinguished. As soon as we realise – emotionally, as well as intellectually – that our mothers were not to blame for what happened, the sooner we are on the path to restoring the family institution and recognizing how sacred this bond between mother and child is. There is no birth mother, this is an oxymoron. There is mother. Only mother, and only one.
We must rid ourselves of the notion that adoption involves free choice. It is a ‘choice’ which is imposed from the outside. It is therefore devoid of any freedom and can only be described as a violation. True choice, freedom comes from the inside not the outside. Mothers do not ‘freely’ and ‘lovingly’ choose to ‘offer’ their children….[a better life]. It is an adoption myth. Adoption does not listen to the mother’s heart. It turns motherhood into profit. No, it is not mothers who choose adoption, it is adoption that chooses the mothers. It chooses those which are most vulnerable, deems them unworthy, and robs them of their flesh and blood. A crime. By causing the rest of society to forget who the real mother is, by causing adoptees to believe in their unwantedness, the real mothers, the grieving mothers are left hidden and forgotten.
May we love and honour our mothers. May we rid her of the guilt she has unnecessarily and wrongly had to carry, and may we restore her to the rightful place in our lives.
© Stephen Fitzpatrick, March 2005

Written Copy Of Speech Made By Sue Reid ( Daily Mail ) Reporter at House Of Commons

By Sue Reid

1

Some in this room this afternoon will find it hard to believe what they
are hearing.

It will sound more like life in Stalin’s Russia or England’s Dark Ages
when women were convicted of witchcraft on concocted allegations, then
burned at the stake.

Yet the destruction of British families in the name of state child
protection has frightening similarities.

And it is being encouraged by the Government, the legal system, the
medical establishment and above all our by the fatally flawed social
services.

In the 22 years since the Cleveland child abuse scandal, when 121
children were ripped from innocent families on the say-so of a maverick
group of doctors and social workers very little has changed for the
better in child protection.

If anything, things have got worse. And at the heart of the problem are
the deceptively named family courts, which operate behind shut doors in
every town and city up and down the land.

2

In England and Wales, 75 children a week are taken from their families
at family court hearings, which are held in the utmost secrecy with what
would appear a laudable aim of protecting the children’s identities.

However, this secrecy throws a veil over everything that happens in
these courts, which, anyway operate with no jury and without the kind of
public scrutiny that leads to a fair trial.

In the normal courts, you are innocent until you are proven guilty but
in the family courts this corner stone of justice does not exist.

All too often, the parents fighting to keep their children have the odds
stacked against them.

As Barbara Hewson, a barrister who has been involved in the family court
process, has told me ’There is a dangerous culture operating here. The
parents always have to prove a negative, that they will never be a
potential risk to their child.

3

‘That is like proving you will never be mentally ill. There is always a
theoretical possibility that you might be. But if these parents cannot
prove it, it is enough for the court to take the child away.’

Jean Robinson, a director of the Association for the Improvement of the
Maternity Services – who has witnessed scores of babies being taken from
their mothers by social workers at birth –  has also warned that the
family court system is stacked against the innocent.

‘The same group of professionals goes round the family courts. The
council social workers know the medical experts and are paying them to
give evidence against the parents. The judges know them all. It is far
too cosy.’

But most worrying of all is that no parent who appears at a family court
can talk about what happens here.

A whispered word to a friend, from a distraught mother about to lose her
child to adoption, means she can face prison for contempt.

4

Hundreds of parents – it is four every single week – have been sent to
jail for breaching this code of secrecy.

Yet parents tell me on a regular basis that evidence from social workers
is routinely made up or distorted, with notes fabricated, to make a case
to take their children away forever.

And, of course, because of the secrecy of the family courts, this can
never be properly exposed.

However, in a few weeks time, the Justice Minister Jack Straw has
promised to open up the family courts.  Reporters will be allowed in to
hear proceedings, although there will be strict controls on what they
are allowed to write or publish afterwards.

And there is also a nasty sting in the tail.

Parents who have lost their children in forced adoptions – or, indeed,
have had them returned –  can today tell their heartbreaking stories
AFTER the case is finished,  shining a rare light into the murky shadows
of the system.

5

But under the new rules, they and their children will be gagged from
talking about their experiences.

Families who have suffered at the hands of our child protection system
will be silenced as never before.

A few years ago I wrote – as did Camilla Cavendish – about couple from
Enfield, north London, whose little girl was carried off by social
workers and into care at a few weeks old.

The father had been accused by Enfield Social Services of maltreating a
boy from his former marriage (a claim totally rejected by police who
investigated, it has to be said).

This family has fought like tigers to keep their little girl. Yet three
weeks ago, a judge in the family division of the High Court finally
dismissed the parents’ new medical evidence that the boy was suffering
from a neurological ailment, and had not been shaken by his father.

In a bitter irony (considering the secrecy of the child protection
system) the little girl was advertised as though she was a puppy for
adoption by Enfield social workers.

6

She has now been introduced to her new adoptive parents and will soon
live with them.

Yet even though their case is over, her real parents have been gagged. A
judge has granted a draconian injunction, at the request of Enfield
Council, to stop them talking about this tragedy in their lives until
the little girl is 18 in 2022. It is a sign of the way things are going.

When the original article was published, I received an avalanche of
phone calls and e-mails from other parents who said their children had
also been, or were about to be, forcibly adopted.

They come from council estates, middle-class suburbs, and even a castle
in the heart of England.

Many of the families left desperate whispered messages on my office
phone late at night. An e-mail from one father just said: ‘Please,
please help, NOW. We are about to lose our son. In family court tomorrow
for final disposals hearing before he is taken for adoption. We have
done nothing wrong.’

A father calling himself ‘James’ rang from a public payphone to say his
wife’s baby was one of eight young children seized by social workers
from hospital maternity units in Tyne side during a two-week period last
summer.

7

A Welsh grandfather complained that his grandson of three weeks was
earmarked by social workers for adoption before even being born.

The mother, a 21-year-old with a mild learning disorder, was told that
she might — just might — get post-natal depression and neglect her son
in the future. To her great distress, her baby was put in the care of
Monmouth social services within minutes of arriving in the world.

The grandfather said: ‘Our entire extended family — including two
nurses, a qualified nanny and a police officer — have offered to help
her care for the baby. I believe my grandson has been deliberately
targeted for adoption since he was in the womb.’

Every one of these people was breaking the law by speaking to me.

Until a year ago, council social work departments were paid bonuses to
meet adoption targets. And, believe me, it is still a numbers game.

Children are taken on any excuse because it means the social worker will
get a pat on the back.

8

I know of innocent mothers who have had their babes in arms forcibly
adopted because as teenage girls they suffered a bout of depression.

Others have had their families destroyed because they once had a violent
boyfriend, or on the grounds that they might, just might, shout at their
son or daughter when they become teenagers.

In the scramble to keep adoption figures high, social workers cast the
net wide. The real child killers are lost in the crowd.

Yet social workers are only human. They do make mistakes. Take the
tragedy of Baby P.

So why are these ordinary mortals allowed to operate within a shadowy
secretive court system with such impunity?

The damage done to children who are taken away from their birth mother
is well documented. Many are psychologically scarred for life.

9

Surely, social workers in Britain, as in many other countries, should be
supporting families with problems instead of ripping them apart?

Recently, a High Court judge in Northern Ireland ordered that a mother
called Louise Mason should be reunited with all three of her children
after they were taken away for adoption.

He took the highly unusual step of allowing Louise to talk about her
case although it was not finally finished and stated that:’ The workings
of the family justice system in this case are a matter of public
interest, and do merit public discussion.’

Louise was accused of hurting her month old daughter after taking her to
the local GP when the child became ill.

It has turned out now that her daughter had cancer, although she has now
recovered.

But doctors at the local hospital refused to believe Louise when she
said she had done nothing to harm her child and called in social
workers.

Louise’s other two children were also taken away, although they have now
been returned to her.

10

Only a miracle saved this family from complete destruction. A doctor who
first admitted the baby at the hospital, and then went off duty, heard
of Louise’s plight months later and off his own bat contacted the
authorities saying he always suspected the little girl had cancer.

Medical tests were done, and the authorities finally believed the
doctor.

But perhaps the saddest thing of all is that Louise’s baby daughter may
never live at home again. She has known no mother or father apart from
her foster parents, and has bonded with them very closely.

When she stays with her mother Louise for a night, she cries piteously.
‘We now think it would be cruel to bring her back.’ Louise told me.

It is, by any standards, a tragic indictment of the child protection
system.

Yet what happened to Louise is not unusual.

11

Every week my phone rings with a desperate parent relating a similar
story. They have taken their child to the doctor, or to hospital, with a
perfectly normal childhood injury, and have been caught up in a fight
against social services to stop their children being adopted.

The truth is that nowhere else in the world is this happening with such
frequency, and in such secrecy, with the backing of the state.

.
ends

Secret Family Courts and Social Services Video Compilation

Child Stealing By The State

Child Stealing by the State

This is truly horrific news. In Britain today a secret court system is stealing and trafficking people’s children. It’s summed up as the ‘Gulag of the Family Courts’ in Jack Frost’s book, and as ‘Child Stealing By The State’ by other journalists. This uncovers a brutal conspiracy between Social Services, the police, the courts, government and public authorities, to unlawfully take children from their parents and pass them into a frightening and often abusive Social Services system. That conspiracy still exists; so does the evidence. When a small community newspaper, the UK Column, was set up in Plymouth with the mission of exposing massive public sector fraud and corruption, its volunteers were shocked at reports of child stealing sent in by parents across Britain.

It was hard to believe at first, some of the stories, but the evidence became overwhelming. Files of letters, court documentation, emails. There were lies, perjury, falsified medical evidence, false psychiatric assessments, kidnapping, psychological pressure, police threats, blatant collusion of defence and legal teams of prosecution against the parents, failure to prosecute the perpetrators of child abuse and medical incompetence, and victimisation of innocent mothers. The courts had taken no notice of the child’s wishes. This horrible tarantula web of a system is secretive and powerful; local councillors cannot challenge their own Social Services departments about their actions. Social Services are UNACCOUNTABLE to anybody and hide behind secret family courts and confidentiality. They use the courts to gag parents and suppress exposure. Governments offer local authorities more money for more children they can get into care; they set targets. 25,000 children a year are being taken in this way.

Here’s one case, the latest case brought to the UK Column: that of a young Down’s girl who was repeatedly raped and abused, causing physical injury. The girl knew and identified the abusers; no charges were ever brought. But her mother, who fought to protect her daughter and seek justice, was committed to a psychiatric unit. Many would assume this a mistake or failure of the care/court systems. The facts suggest otherwise. Template cases reported from across Europe, USA and Britain reinforce this.

These events are orchestrated. Support and Common Purpose are at the highest levels. Common Purpose goes into schools to re-train children and also uses Neuro-Linguistic Programming on the police. The BBC is heavily involved in Common Purpose and James Rennie, who abused 3-month old babies, was Common Purpose trained. There are secret family courts, into which the public are not allowed. They are very dangerous in that the public have no track as to what’s happening to people. And they are under the total control of a single Judge, who knowingly or unknowingly relies on false evidence, and a district judge can come out with a gagging order and put people in jail for trying to tell the story. There have been 200 people put in jail through the secret courts. It is creeping piece by piece. The children are taken and the child snatch cases are gagged under family court ‘confidentiality’ rules and data protection.

The appeal process is corrupt and circular, much like a revolving door, and held in secret, so the victimised parents and children find themselves denied justice. Pathways are blocked. Threats are used to get parents to back down. Children are put on one of three data bases – (i) contact point; (ii) social services; (iii) MPs and celebrities. They are being fingerprinted even for going into lessons. Siemens, the German CCTV company, provide social services with the software to get close to our children. Also parents being told they’re not ‘bright’ enough to have children (I heard of a case of a 17 year old girl on the run for this same reason to protect her child) – this is the start of eugenics, which is being taught in schools. Goldman Sachs funds this amongst other 3rd sector quangoes and charities. Eugenics is here in our children’s schools; it has a registered charity number 1099782 (UK) under the regulator for charities in England and Wales, founded by Laura Huxley wife of Aldous Huxley. Aldous Huxley supported sterilisation to “prevent the sub-normal from having any families at all”. There’s an agenda to re-educate and re-engineer children into a new society. (Barnardos supports the adoption of children before they are born.)

Those trained in psychosynthesis are now in UK schools: under the ‘Teens and Toddlers Project, Part 1 of Children: Our Ultimate Investment’. Counsellors are being placed in schools each offering a day of 5 or 6 counselling sessions, that’s 50 counselling sessions per school per week, the parent never knows what happens in these sessions; ‘Project Caress’ was an objective, to develop ‘caressing rooms’. Many reports have arisen of children hanging themselves. Something is being done in the schools. Industrial Military private companies are running Academy schools and ARK (Absolute Return for Kids). Children are encouraged to use laptops, there’s heavy use of Wi-Fi . Newspapers are gagged. The UK Column helps parents and children tell their stories, and in doing this, it has received no less than four injunctions so that they can’t report in so much detail of this agenda to break up families. One recent court case, the court used the Peter Wright MI5 ‘Spycatcher’ official secrets act case as the precedence case to prevent the other publishing her story of child kidnap.

Endless reports document social services officials as being cold, like emotionless robots, and the truth began to unravel. What happens to these children when they are placed in ‘care’? They are often used for drug testing. Often body parts are disappearing in hospitals. There is the case of Helenor Bye. Body parts were stripped out of her – provable. The case of Hollie Greig – her mother was forced to the ground and had a needle inserted in her. She was placed in a psychiatric unit. The case of Linda Lewis – she was never allowed in a court to say she wanted to go home and was put on a cocktail of drugs and told her mum never loved her, people were laughing at her and her pain was imaginary. Sabina – the case of a 10 year old son taken, and Corinne Gouget – this case was twisted 180 degrees. They destroyed her mental health so much she was treated as a mental case. Ian Joseph wrote a book, ‘Forced Adoption’. They falsify documents, lie, bully, and turn children against their parents, having been taught how to use psychological bullying using NLP programming; the Nazis did this. Look up EU Child Snatching Roelie Post – who worked in Romania, and the trafficking of Romanian children, in laboratories wired up with electrodes; Col J R Rees – ‘Mental Health’ links to Tavistock; also Tavistock links to NHS. This shadow group, Common Purpose, here gets spookier when they use phrases like ‘Our networks will soon be very important’. They are seen now joining UK networks with networks in Europe. Gordon Brown and Barack Obama have been heard using the expression ‘common purpose’. Never contact social services. Never sign anything. Refuse assessment by psychiatrists. Stay away from these people.

The extreme cases are all about re-engineering children into this new society and taking a few children away in the thousands is testing the waters. This was presented by Brian Gerrish, ex-Naval officer and anti-submarine warfare expert from Plymouth and who I have deep respect for, who discovered a strange organisation called Common Purpose operating in the city which he fell upon when he was involved with a group in Plymouth helping people find jobs; one of their projects was restoring wooden boats. It was a success, everything was going fine. And then it suddenly changed. The Council withdrew their support. Brian and his team tried to carry on with it alone. But within a short time key people were being threatened. What went wrong? They were shocked to find that Common Purpose was encompassing so many groups of people who did not declare themselves and that operated throughout the structure of the city – they found them in government offices, in the City Council, in the police, in the judiciary, it was everywhere; something underlying, evolving, like an elitist secret society which doesn’t want to show itself to ordinary people and talks about ‘creating new leaders’. He and his colleagues started to dig. Regarding the nature of the children’s cases at this conference Brian could not give quite so much detail as he used to do at previous speeches due to receiving injunctions to silence him.

Story and more links at:

http://www.intmensorg.info/commonpurpose.htm

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058650382

February 20, 2010

Complaints Local government ombudsman dealt with

Filed under: Uncategorized — nojusticeforparents @ 3:50 am
In a case of adoption breakdown the Council failed to conduct initial and core assessments which
would have resulted in the involvement of other agencies and failed to give a clear response to the
parents’ request for a referral to a private therapeutic centre. The Council did not work in partnership
with the parents and there was inadequate planning for the child’s best interests. This resulted in
additional anxiety for the complainants and considerable frustration. The Council apologised and
agreed to make a payment of £750.
A young person looked after by the Council complained that the Council had failed to make
appropriate care plans for him and had moved him without consultation and without seeking his views.
He further complained that it had failed to take action, even after he had made a formal complaint, to
prevent him being bullied in the children’s unit where he had been placed and that the physical
conditions in the unit were poor. The young person felt that he was not being listened to and that
no-one cared. He was unhappy, frightened and at real risk of physical harm. He made his complaint
after he had been moved to a safe environment where he felt secure. It is to the Council’s credit that it
swiftly agreed to settle the complaint locally by apologising and making a payment of £2000. I am
pleased that the Council recognises the need to respond promptly where complaints from young or
vulnerable people are concerned.
A complaint about education concerned efforts made by the Council to integrate a young person with

In a case of adoption breakdown the Council failed to conduct initial and core assessments whichwould have resulted in the involvement of other agencies and failed to give a clear response to theparents’ request for a referral to a private therapeutic centre. The Council did not work in partnershipwith the parents and there was inadequate planning for the child’s best interests. This resulted inadditional anxiety for the complainants and considerable frustration. The Council apologised andagreed to make a payment of £750.A young person looked after by the Council complained that the Council had failed to makeappropriate care plans for him and had moved him without consultation and without seeking his views.He further complained that it had failed to take action, even after he had made a formal complaint, toprevent him being bullied in the children’s unit where he had been placed and that the physicalconditions in the unit were poor. The young person felt that he was not being listened to and thatno-one cared. He was unhappy, frightened and at real risk of physical harm. He made his complaintafter he had been moved to a safe environment where he felt secure. It is to the Council’s credit that itswiftly agreed to settle the complaint locally by apologising and making a payment of £2000. I ampleased that the Council recognises the need to respond promptly where complaints from young orvulnerable people are concerned.

Five complaints were decided on the basis of local settlements. Four of those cases concerned

complaints about children and family services. In one case your Council had failed to implement the

recommendation of a social services review panel which meant that the complainant did not receive a

reimbursement of monies he had lost because of incorrect information your Council had provided.

Your Council arranged for an appropriate officer to meet with the complainant, clarify the sums

involved, assess his needs and make suitable provision for him. In addition your Council paid £5,000

compensation.

In the other three cases about children and family services that were decided as local settlements

your Council paid £4,100 in compensation.

I decided two children and family services complaints as local settlements. One concerned delays

by the Council in making appropriate financial and other planning arrangements for a young person

when he reached 18 years of age. The other concerned the failure by the Council to provide

adequate information to potential foster parents

February 19, 2010

STAFFORDSHIRE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOUND GUILTY

http://icstafford.icnetwork.co.uk/news/localnews/tm_headline=mp-joins-row-over-wait-for-key-files%26method=full%26objectid=24536208%26siteid=87875-name_page.html

PARENTS TELL WOMAN THEY HAVE SAME PROBLEMSBacking for mum over files access

By Lyn Grainger

The Stafford mother battling to have access to Social Services files on her children has received nationwide support after telling her story to the Post.

The woman who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been fighting for 18 months to see Staffordshire County council reports on her family which she says are inaccurate and may have affected court proceedings and the access she has to her sons.

Under data protection law she should have been given the information within 40 days.

Earlier this year Stafford’s MP David Kidney joined her fight and said he was “ spitting mad “ after being assured in April she would be given the files.

And now on the Stafford mother’s online blog, parents across the country have backed her call for the reports – and have revealed that many of them are in the same situation.

One local parent wrote ; “I had the same problem with Staffordshire County Council trying to get information.When it was finally sent six months later some of the information had been deleted. I know this as I had original copies of some of the papers.”

And parents from across the country raised concerns about their own local authorities and social services.

One wrote :” This happened to me. In my case they had 40 days to reply but they said that because they shared parental responsibility with me ( which means they are in control )they can decide if I have that information.”

Another commented: “Many years after my daughter was adopted against my wishes I found that a letter sent to Social Services contained a typing error which conveyed the opposite intention to that which had been meant regards my parental abilities. This typing error may have contributed directly to the awful course of events that prevented my having my baby back. I believe it was used to discredit me despite the hospital writing again to correct the mistake “

Alison Stevens, of the campaign group Parents Against Injustice, said the organisation was aware of many cases dragging their heels over information requests.

“ Local Authorities have to send the requested files within 40 days but they are often not following public law guidelines. “

She added “ We have been quite successful, with regards to parents obtaining their social services files, under the data protection act, using a template letter and another letter we have drafted for the Information Commissioner.”

A spokesperson for Staffordshire County Council issued this statement last week : “ The issue of supplying case files extends further than a data protection issue, which would carry a deadline of 40 days.

“ Now we have received advice from the Information Commissioner a meeting will be held imminently to discuss this matter to agree what information she will be provided with.

This is the history now for the present

I refer to your complaint to the Information Commissioner concerning the Social Services Department of Staffordshire County Council.

In my previous email I indicated that I would be approaching the Council with regard to your complaint.  The Council appeared to have breached the sixth data protection principle by failing to properly respond to the subject access request you made in February 2008.  Also, I wished to confirm that you had received all of the information to which you are entitled, and to establish what information has been withheld from you, and what action has been taken in relation to the information which you consider to be inaccurate.

I received a response from the Council shortly after speaking to you yesterday morning.  With regard to your requests for information, I understand that, to date, no information has been provided to you in response to your February 2008 request, or any of the requests you have made subsequently during the course of your contact with the Council.  (I should add that the Council’s records do not show what action took place in 2008.  However, in view of the fact that you continued to make further requests I am assuming that you received no information in response to your request at that time.)

It appears that whilst the files were to be presented to you on 16 June 2009, a last minute decision was taken that legal advice should be obtained before the information could be disclosed.  This was because there were concerns that you may have published the information you received, to the detriment of your children.  The matter was considered further in August 2009 but the same conclusion was reached.  It is not clear whether you were ever informed of this.  However, I understand that an injunction was issued regarding publishing information in relation to one of your children.

By October 2009 the Council was aware that you had moved to Newquay and that you required release through your solicitor (it is not clear whether you informed the Council of this).  However, it appears that whilst the Council is now ready to release the files to you, they do not have your new postal address, or that of your solicitors.

In view of the above I have confirmed my assessment that the Council have breached the sixth data protection principle in this case.  It is clear that the Council had concerns about the release of the information to you.  Nevertheless, you should still have received a response to your original request, and your further requests, within 40 days of each request.  Whilst it would appear that some of your subsequent requests were contained within your formal complaints to the Council, they should have been dealt with as separate matters.

The DPA allows information held by social services departments to be withheld from a response to a subject access request if the provision of the information:-

“would be likely to prejudice the carrying out of social work by reason of the fact that serious harm to the physical of mental health or condition of the data subject or any other person would be likely to be caused.”

However, even though it was necessary for legal advice to be obtained in this case, this should have been done within the statutory 40 day timeframe.  Also, if the final decision was that all of the information should be withheld from you, you should have been informed of this within that 40 day timeframe.

Nevertheless, as I have indicated above, the Council are now ready to provide you with the information to which you are entitled if you could provide them with your, or your solicitors’, address.  Please contact the Acting Access to Information Manager with this.

More press stories to follow regarding this matter and the matter .

February 15, 2010

Corrupt Proffesionals Responsible for Your Children

Filed under: Uncategorized — nojusticeforparents @ 7:28 pm
John Cope Teacher sexually grooming a pupil Brighton and Hove http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8400688.stm
Shelley White Teacher snogging” a 15-year-old pupil. West Yorkshire. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4360348.stm
Ryan Price Teacher making and distributing indecent images. Brent http://vlex.co.uk/vid/teacher-guilty-of-child-porn-61994302
Stephen Royle Teacher child porn Lowton High School in Wigan http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1076185_teacher_guilty_over_child_porn
Joseph Kinnear Teacher 13 sex charges Hexham and Rothbury. http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/Teacher-guilty-of-13-sex.1905172.jp
Matthew Knott Teacher sexual activity with a teenage girl Elton High School in Bury http://www.nemadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1131656_teacher_guilty_of_having_sex_with_a_teenager
Mark Little Teacher sexual relationship with an underage girl. Unknown http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1082592_sex_case_teacher_guilty
Simon Pearce Teacher sex assaults Staffordshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4008045.stm
Ralph Bell Teacher indecent images of children Irwell Park High School in Salford http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4020017.stm
Gerard Cranny Teacher pornographic images of children Lincoln http://www.home-education.org.uk/articles-teacher-abuse.htm
Robert Burke Teacher downloading child porn Dover http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4023881.stm
Peter Watts Teacher distributing child pornography Sussex http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3674280.stm
Jamie Gunn Teacher groomed girl Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4045627.stm
Andrew Gordon Teacher abusing boys London http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4063097.stm
Nigel Chambers Teacher child porn Dursley http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3720732.stm
Mark Peterson Teacher sexual offences on boys Surrey http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3707552.stm
David Mardle Teacher ndecent assault against schoolgirls Luton http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/3719328.stm
Iain Robertson Teacher grooming girls Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4073115.stm
Geoffrey Breed Teacher molesting 5 girls Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3744792.stm
Justine Rowe Teacher lesbian affair with a 15-year-old Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4082485.stm
Robert Howieson Teacher child porn Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/3757000.stm
Richard Green Teacher filmed teenagers changing Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4115809.stm
David Anderson Teacher indecent assault of a 15-year-old girl Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4111371.stm
David Morgan Teacher sex attacks on young girls Wakefield http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3992249.stm
Colin Jeneson Teacher indecency offences involving boys. Aldridge http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4043249.stm
Simon Pearce Teacher seven sex offences Staffordshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4174353.stm
Thomas Watson Teacher series of assaults Staffordshire http://www.corpun.com/ukr00203.htm
James Formby Police Officer had sex on duty with a woman he was meant to be helping. Metropolitan Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8481528.stm
James Southwell Police Officer raped and sexually assaulted eight children over a 17-year period Greater Manchester Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1883978.stm
Dean Bennellick Police Officer a string of sex attacks on a young girl over a 10-year period http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/Ex-policeman-jailed-sex-attacks-young-girl/article-1195335-detail/article.html
Ian Shuttleworth Police Officer trafficking women to the sex slave trade in Britain. Liverpool http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1020906/Former-British-police-officer-arrested-Thailand-sending-sex-slaves-UK.html
Paul Hook Police Officer downloading indecent images of children Kent http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4014681.stm
Kevin Hicks Police Officer having sex with a 14-year-old girl. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3666246.stm
Peter Alderson Police Officer indecently assaulted two teenage scouts Met police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4067067.stm
David Bruce Police Officer indecent images of children British Transport Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4075405.stm
Kevin Williams Police Officer string of sex attacks on a schoolgirl. South Wales Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4085467.stm
James Beeton Police Officer abducting and indecently assaulting a teenager Cambs Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/4098415.stm
Julian Glynn Police Officer indecent assault. Leicestershire Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3951423.stm
Anthony Smith Police Officer pleasuring himself in front of an internet web cam Metropolitan Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4121349.stm
Neville Causbrook Police Officer two rapes and a sexual assault Northampton Assizes http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Expoliceman-jailed-for-nine-years.4621187.jp
Mohammed Arfaan Ali Hussain Police Officer groomed girls for sex Metropolitan Police http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/news/s/1033485_policeman_groomed__girls_for_sex
Robert Hazon Police Officer sex assaults on girl Humberside http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/PC-found-guilty-of-sex.4047506.jp
Kristian Abbott Police Officer carried out sex act in front of girl Greater Manchester http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083851/Married-policeman-carried-sex-act-girl-15-facing-jail.html
David Roythorne Police Officer sexual assaults Northumbria Police http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2242658/Mounted-policeman-on-sex-charges.html
Lee Michael Rackham Police Officer sexual assaults Humberside http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Expoliceman-jailed-for-trying-to.5924038.jp
Andrew Chatfield Police Officer indecently exposing himself http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/apr/19/paulkelso
Peter Cooper Police Officer serious paedophile offences Staffordshire http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2224849.ece
David Cookson Social Worker Sex with mentally ill woman Surrey http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2049682_sex_offender_social_worker_struck_off
Stanley Lansdell Social Worker Shouting homophobic abuse at child Bradford http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/07/social-worker-struck-off-for-abusing-trans-child/
Craig Mccoughlin Social Worker Buying recovering alcoholic alcohol Sheffield http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6515763/Social-worker-struck-off-after-buying-whisky-for-rehab-patient.html
Michael Bird Social Worker Filming up womens skirts Newcastle http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/michael+bird.htm
Christopher Hardman Social Worker Conning teenage girls to pose topless Kirklees http://www.lgcplus.com/news/social-care/social-worker-struck-off-over-porn-ruse/5004811.article
Joy Coles Social Worker Placing children at risk Leicester http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/09/social-worker-struck-off
Douglas Adams Social Worker Inappropriate sexual comments Barnsley http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Barneley-social-worker-struck-off.5995217.jp
Edward Evans Social Worker Deception Aberdeen http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1576910?UserKey=
Richard Clasby Social Worker Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshire http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/Social-worker-is-struck-off.5228172.jp
Alan Rhodes Social Worker Breach of codes of conduct Leeds http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-174210551.html
Kevin Mence Social Worker Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshire http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/Social-worker-struck-off-after.5468025.jp
Karen Taylor Social Worker Failed to adhere to employers abscence management procedures Glasgow http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/
Alan Man Social Worker Accused of using inappropriate and degrading language to young client Glasgow http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/
Derek Horrobin Social Worker Running 3 licensed premises with violence and underage drinking Moray http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/
Niamh Duigan Social Worker Possessing class A drugs and 2 counts of offering to supply Manchester http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-work-blog/2009/12/manchester-social-worker-due-i.html
Tracy Dawber Social Worker permitting indecent images of children to be made and one charge of sexual assault on a child under 13 SEFTON http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/southport-news/southport-southport-news/2009/11/20/sefton-council-social-worker-on-child-porn-and-abuse-charge-101022-25209653/
Lynda Barnes Social Worker found guilty of hiring a hitman to kill her husband. Bath and North East Somerset http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6529831.ece
Andrew Walker Social Worker forming an inappropriate personal relationship with a person who used services. Rotherham http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Rotherham+social+worker+found+guilty+of+misconduct+and+removed+from+register.htm
Jacinta Hofstetter Social Worker caused distress and anxiety to a child and placed other children at unnecessary risk of harm. Brent http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release-14-07-09.htm
Carole Baptiste Social Worker deliberately breaching an inquiry summons Haringey http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-135326/Social-worker-guilty-Climbie-inquiry-absence.html
Paul Collett Social Worker Misconduct after sending mother to see prophet in Nigeria Southampton http://tbjfansuk.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/paul-collett-guilty-of-misconduct-after-sending-woman-to-see-tb-joshua/
David Holder Social Worker behaving inappropriately towards three women colleagues. Gloucester http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucester/headlines/Social-worker-guilty-misconduct/article-1636369-detail/article.html
Rod Ryall Social Worker Charged with 13 sex offences against teenage boys Calderdale http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Former-Calderdale-social-services-chief.5681482.jp
John Donnelly Social Worker Failed to provide appropriate care to vulnerable adults to their detriment Lanarkshire http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/
Michael Wrenn Social Worker lied about taking taxis to work to fraudulently claim more than £4 Oldham http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/online_archive/?courts=5&name=misconduct
Lorraine Brimelow Social Worker suspended for six months after taking a child under the care of Stoke-on-Trent City Council back to her own house. Derby http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Social-worker-took-child-home/article-1370931-detail/article.html
Andrew Bennett Social Worker allowed ‘rapist’ to slip through net in litany of failure Dundee http://news.scotsman.com/dundee/Social-worker-allowed-39rapist39-to.5910966.jp
Thomas Ritzler Social Worker slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREY http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2064447_colleague_of_underage_sex_social_worker_suspended
Daniel Bester Social Worker suspended for not reporting a colleague who slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREY http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2064447_colleague_of_underage_sex_social_worker_suspended
Alan Carr Social Worker formed an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable child in care. St Helens http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+barred+following+relationship+with+woman.htm
David Crank Social Worker a string of indecent assaults against a schoolboy Tameside http://www.wilmslowexpress.co.uk/news/s/461/461764_jail_for_pervert_social_worker.html
Michael Carroll Social Worker indecent assault on a 12-year-old boy Lambeth http://www.independent.co.uk/news/care-worker-had-paedophile-record-1104540.html
Unknown Social Worker seven-year campaign of sexual abuse of his partner’s young daughter unknown http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6678045/Paedophiles-continued-as-social-workers-because-of-watchdog-failings.html
Ruth Hughes Social Worker prolonged and repeated” breaches of the code of practice for social workers Nottingham http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Notts-social-worker-banned/article-341472-detail/article.html
Frederick Goudy Social Worker five counts of sexual assault. Reading http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2029387_care_worker_pervy_fred_guilty_of_sex_assaults
David Michael Kendrick Social Worker assaulting two boys in his care Staffordshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3265321.stm
Gordon Wateridge Social Worker indecently assaulting teenage children. Jersey http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/excare-worker-abused-kids-on-uk-isle-20090821-esd9.html
Unknown Social Worker sexually abused a minor Unknown http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Mr+X+release.htm
Venetia Tsiaka Social Worker inviting a mother and her children into her home to conclude a formal meeting. Warrington http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news_release_260509.htm
Brian Morris Social Worker involved in domestic violence Bournemouth http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/New_release_31-03-09.htm
Tom Watt Social Worker sexually assaulted women Buckinghamshire http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release_20-03-09.htm
Adesola Adeniji-Smith Social Worker Dishonesty Islington http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release_18-03-09.htm
Paul Derek Girdlestone Social Worker possessing and distributing indecent images of children Hampshire http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Media_release_26-01-09.htm
Wladyslaw Piotr Kiczma Social Worker carried out inappropriate physical examinations of children Birmingham http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/25112008news.htm
Egbert Elijah Hall Social Worker pursued two vulnerable women who used services. Brent http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20081107.htm
Rawle McCarthy Social Worker worked whilst temporarily excluded from the Social Care Register Haringey http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080930.htm
Frederick Keith Stockdale Social Worker physically restricted a person who used services in a way that breached official guidelines Sunderland http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/20080912.htm
Eogain Gallagher Social Worker breached the code of practice. West Sussex http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news01092008.htm
Mr Mncedisi V. Apleni Social Worker found guilty of rape Essex http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/18082008.htm
Neil Gabriel Social Worker convicted in 2007 of indecently assaulting a 10-year-old girl Cambridgeshire http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/20080813.htm
Mark Wooldridge Social Worker found to have had sexual relationships with two vulnerable women who used services and were allocated to him. Somerset http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080710.htm
Martine Boyd Social Worker forming an inappropriate personal relationship and for failing to disclose information to her employer.   Bedfordshire http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080714.htm
Jacqueline Mullins’ Social Worker failing to store and maintain records containing sensitive information. Rotherham http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+cautioned+for+failing+to+maintain+and+store+records.htm
Virginia Leckie Social Worker forming an inappropriate relationship and for dishonesty. Hounslow http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+removed+from+register+for+dishonesty+and+inappropriate+relationship.htm
Stephen Douglas Social Worker formed an inappropriate personal relationship with a woman described as ‘extremely vulnerable’ Northumberland http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+removed+from+Register+following+relationship+with+vulnerable+client.htm
Hilary Sampson Social Worker breached the profession’s code of practice. Derbyshire http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+suspended+from+register+after+inappropriate+relationship.htm
Geoffrey Casey Social Worker Making false allegations to police, nspcc and social services about a couple Witney http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+removed+following+conduct+hearing+in+London-Dec3.htm
Mr Andrew Atkins Social Worker forming an inappropriate and personal relationship with a person who uses services Leeds http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London-nov26.htm
John Bennett Social Worker maintaining a grossly offensive website as well as possessing indecent photographs of children. Lincoln http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+removed+following+conduct+hearing+in+London.htm
Mr Steven McGarry. Social Worker failing to declare previous criminal convictions Barrow-in-Furness http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London.htm
Eric Charlesworth Social Worker inappropriate touching and physical contact with service users. Rugby http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+Birmingham.htm
Laura Lee Social Worker driving with excess of alcohol and failing to declare the conviction t Wolverhampton http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London2.htm
Michael Powell Tory candidate downloading hardcore child porn Unknown http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/13/teacher_found_guilty_of_kiddie/
Alan Burkitt Tory Councillor Convicted of pimping andwell/West Midlands http://www.24dash.com/localgovernment/18137.htm
Roger Talboys Tory Councillor multiple sex attacks on children. Wickbar/Bristol http://archive.runcornandwidnesworld.co.uk/1997/2/6/22814.html
Michael Howden Tory Councillor rape of a teenage girl Wallasey/Merseyside http://archive.runcornandwidnesworld.co.uk/1997/2/6/22814.html
Kenneth Leadbeater Tory Council leader downloading kiddie porn Dartford/Kent http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/localheadlines/display.var.935392.0.former_council_leaders_porn_shame.php
Harvey Proctor Tory Party MP sex offences Billericay/Essex http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/16/newsid_2524000/2524727.stm
Ian Harvey Tory Party MP gross indecency Harrow East http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Harvey_%28politician%29
Michael Morris Tory Councillor ndecent assault of another man Wrexham/Wales http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/2998019.stm
Stephen Milligan Tory Party MP grotesque solo bondage and self-strangulation sex act. Eastleigh) http://www.newsmedianews.com/milligan.shtml
Peter Stidworthy Tory Councillor indecent assault of a 15-year old boy Whoberley/Coventry http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/page.cfm?objectid=12420373&method=full&siteid=50003
Christopher Pilkington Tory Councillor downloading hardcore child porn Stratford-upon-Avon http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/Pressoffice/Pressreleasearchive/Pressreleases2004/title
Douglas Pallet Tory Councillor Convicted of Assault Colchester/Essex http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19981014/ai_n14200832
Freddie Emery Wallis Tory Council leader Charged with sexual assaults on 2 teenage boys Portsmouth/Hampshire http://archive.romseyadvertiser.co.uk/2001/6/14/74339.html
Chris Morgan Tory Mayor indecent assault North Tyneside http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/3303439.stm
Dean Jenkins Tory Councillor kiddie porn Newport/Wales http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/269329.stm
Douglas Campbell Tory Liason Manager downloading child porn. Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/269329.stm
Gordon Myland Tory Mayor verbal and sexual harassment St Albans/Hertfordshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/269329.stm
Jim Merrick – Tory Councillor multiple sex attacks on little girls Bradford/Yorkshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/269329.stm
Tom Spencer Tory MEP smuggling drugs and porn through customs Surrey http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/269329.stm
Stephen Mertens Tory Official repeatedly raping a six-year old girl Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3911955.stm
Mike Oram Tory Councillor child porn charges Blandford/North Dorset http://archive.echo-news.co.uk/1999/2/23/224841.html
Brian Webber Tory Councillor physical assault on a woman civil servant. Bath http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163490&command=displaId=163047
Michael Robinson Tory Councillor indecent assault Tendring/Essex http://archive.echo-news.co.uk/1999/2/23/224841.html
David Smith Tory Councillor child porn Felixstowe/Suffolk http://www.iwar.org.uk/pipermail/infocon/2004-February/001064.html
Michael Brown Tory Party MP homosexual affair Unknown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Brown_%28UK_politician%29
Robert Richdale Tory Councillor sex attacks against underage schoolgirls Folkestone http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3899161.stm
Louise Burrows Tory Councillor assaulting 3 young children Doncaster/Yorkshire http://www.the-villager.co.uk/Archives.asp?FILE=20020909016&ACT=LEG
Callum Thomas Craig Scout Leader sexually abused nine boys Staffordshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3149374.stm
Phillip Dunn Barnados Worker sex offences against 17 children North Yorkshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/228026.stm
Samuel McBrearty Childcare Assistant raped and sexually assaulted girls Renfrewshire http://www.redguitars.co.uk/fbga/bbcScotNews28_09_01.php
John Porteous Care Home Worker sexually abusing two boys Renfrewshire http://www.redguitars.co.uk/fbga/nov02.php
Mary Drummond CARE worker locked up young girls in a cupboard Renfrewshire http://www.redguitars.co.uk/fbga/scotsman02_10_03.php
Sean John Drummond Christian Brother indecently assaulting 19 pupils Limerick http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/former-brother-admits-36-indecent-assault-charges-1786176.html
Anne Poli-Page teacher took her top off in front of schoolboy South Leicestershire http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249727/Obsessed-teacher-took-schoolboy-15-facing-jail.html
Luke Sadowski trainee teacher child sex attempt Southwark http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-192004/Teacher-jailed-child-sex-attempt.html

John Cope Teacher sexually grooming a pupil Brighton and Hove http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8400688.stmShelley White Teacher snogging” a 15-year-old pupil. West Yorkshire. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4360348.stmPeter Channell Teacher sex attacks Unknown http://www.metro.co.uk/news/769606-teacher-guilty-of-sex-attacks-at-anti-rape-classesRyan Price Teacher making and distributing indecent images. Brent http://vlex.co.uk/vid/teacher-guilty-of-child-porn-61994302Stephen Royle Teacher child porn Lowton High School in Wigan http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1076185_teacher_guilty_over_child_pornJoseph Kinnear Teacher 13 sex charges Hexham and Rothbury. http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/Teacher-guilty-of-13-sex.1905172.jpPaul Slater Teacher child sex abuse Bedfordshire. http://www.northantset.co.uk/rushden/Ex-Rushden-teacher-guilty-of.5147249.jpBrett Meeds Teacher Sexual Assault Norfolk http://www.cps.gov.uk/eastern/cps_eastern_news/teacher_pleads_guilty_to_sexual_assault/Matthew Knott Teacher sexual activity with a teenage girl Elton High School in Bury http://www.nemadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1131656_teacher_guilty_of_having_sex_with_a_teenagerMark Little Teacher sexual relationship with an underage girl. Unknown http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1082592_sex_case_teacher_guiltySimon Pearce Teacher sex assaults Staffordshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4008045.stmRalph Bell Teacher indecent images of children Irwell Park High School in Salford http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4020017.stmGerard Cranny Teacher pornographic images of children Lincoln http://www.home-education.org.uk/articles-teacher-abuse.htmRobert Burke Teacher downloading child porn Dover http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4023881.stmPeter Watts Teacher distributing child pornography Sussex http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3674280.stmJamie Gunn Teacher groomed girl Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4045627.stmAndrew Gordon Teacher abusing boys London http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4063097.stmNigel Chambers Teacher child porn Dursley http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3720732.stmMark Peterson Teacher sexual offences on boys Surrey http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3707552.stmDavid Mardle Teacher ndecent assault against schoolgirls Luton http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/3719328.stmIain Robertson Teacher grooming girls Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4073115.stmGeoffrey Breed Teacher molesting 5 girls Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3744792.stmJustine Rowe Teacher lesbian affair with a 15-year-old Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4082485.stmRobert Howieson Teacher child porn Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/3757000.stmRichard Green Teacher filmed teenagers changing Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4115809.stmDavid Anderson Teacher indecent assault of a 15-year-old girl Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4111371.stmDavid Morgan Teacher sex attacks on young girls Wakefield http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3992249.stmColin Jeneson Teacher indecency offences involving boys. Aldridge http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4043249.stmSimon Pearce Teacher seven sex offences Staffordshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4174353.stmKen Browne Teacher child porn Brighton http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211171/British-ambassador-schools-sacked-child-porn-charges.htmlThomas Watson Teacher series of assaults Staffordshire http://www.corpun.com/ukr00203.htmJames Formby Police Officer had sex on duty with a woman he was meant to be helping. Metropolitan Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8481528.stmJames Southwell Police Officer raped and sexually assaulted eight children over a 17-year period Greater Manchester Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1883978.stmDean Bennellick Police Officer a string of sex attacks on a young girl over a 10-year period http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/Ex-policeman-jailed-sex-attacks-young-girl/article-1195335-detail/article.htmlIan Shuttleworth Police Officer trafficking women to the sex slave trade in Britain. Liverpool http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1020906/Former-British-police-officer-arrested-Thailand-sending-sex-slaves-UK.htmlPaul Hook Police Officer downloading indecent images of children Kent http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4014681.stmKevin Hicks Police Officer having sex with a 14-year-old girl. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3666246.stmPeter Alderson Police Officer indecently assaulted two teenage scouts Met police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4067067.stmDavid Bruce Police Officer indecent images of children British Transport Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4075405.stmKevin Williams Police Officer string of sex attacks on a schoolgirl. South Wales Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4085467.stmJames Beeton Police Officer abducting and indecently assaulting a teenager Cambs Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/4098415.stmJulian Glynn Police Officer indecent assault. Leicestershire Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3951423.stmAnthony Smith Police Officer pleasuring himself in front of an internet web cam Metropolitan Police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4121349.stmNeville Causbrook Police Officer two rapes and a sexual assault Northampton Assizes http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Expoliceman-jailed-for-nine-years.4621187.jpAndrew Rowe Police Officer ‘grooming’ teenager Staffordshire Police’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6151427/Former-child-abuse-detective-pleads-guilty-to-grooming-teenager.htmlMohammed Arfaan Ali Hussain Police Officer groomed girls for sex Metropolitan Police http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/news/s/1033485_policeman_groomed__girls_for_sexRobert Hazon Police Officer sex assaults on girl Humberside http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/PC-found-guilty-of-sex.4047506.jpAaron William Ernest Payne Police Officer images of child abuse Armagh http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/policeman-with-5000-child-abuse-images-and-rape-videos-is-jailed-1729948.htmlKristian Abbott Police Officer carried out sex act in front of girl Greater Manchester http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083851/Married-policeman-carried-sex-act-girl-15-facing-jail.htmlIvan David Howell Police Officer images of child abuse Warwickshire Police http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/south-warwickshire-news/2004/10/07/anger-as-porn-case-policeman-walks-free-92746-14728049/John McFadden Police Officer sexually abusing three youngsters. http://news.stv.tv/scotland/101707-former-policeman-who-claimed-he-was-black-magic-priest-convicted-of-abuse/David Roythorne Police Officer sexual assaults Northumbria Police http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2242658/Mounted-policeman-on-sex-charges.htmlTimothy Jones Police Officer sexually harassed women North Wales http://www.eaves4women.co.uk/Lilith_Research_And_Development/Weekly_News/Weekly_Round_Up_Issues/249%20(09%20to%2013%20Mar2009).pdfJohn Wardrop Police Officer threatened to kill his own wife. Ayrshire. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/11/29/exclusive-domestic-abuse-cop-terrified-wife-with-threats-to-kill-her-86908-21859237/Gary Jay Police Officer assault Essex Police http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034367/Policeman-guilty-assaulting-father-collapsed-died-minutes-later.htmlPeter Cokell Police Officer shoplifting Avon and Somerset http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Policeman-guity-stealing-Bristol-shop/article-1491839-detail/article.htmlLee Michael Rackham Police Officer sexual assaults Humberside http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Expoliceman-jailed-for-trying-to.5924038.jpAndrew Chatfield Police Officer indecently exposing himself http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/apr/19/paulkelsoMark Daniel Police Officer kerb-crawling Metropolitan Police http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/19056/-I-was-looking-for-a-burger-says-kerb-crawling-policemanPeter Cooper Police Officer serious paedophile offences Staffordshire http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2224849.eceEleni Cordingley Social Worker Placed child at risk. Swansea http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/01/27/110556/conduct-swansea-social-worker-struck-off-for-poor-judgement.htmDwight Mcguire Social Worker Sexual Abuse. Darlington http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/26/113650/former-darlington-social-worker-struck-off-over-us-child-abuse.htmDavid Cookson Social Worker Sex with mentally ill woman Surrey http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2049682_sex_offender_social_worker_struck_offStanley Lansdell Social Worker Shouting homophobic abuse at child Bradford http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/07/social-worker-struck-off-for-abusing-trans-child/Craig Mccoughlin Social Worker Buying recovering alcoholic alcohol Sheffield http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6515763/Social-worker-struck-off-after-buying-whisky-for-rehab-patient.htmlMichael Bird Social Worker Filming up womens skirts Newcastle http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/michael+bird.htmJulie Andrews Social Worker Obtaining money by deception Unknown http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/09/29/112705/jailed-social-worker-struck-off-after-admitting-25000-fraud.htmDouglas Makey Social Worker Sexual Abuse Gravesend http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/4637776.GRAVESEND__Social_worker_struck_off_after_allegedly_sexually_abusing_two_girls/Lynne Greenwood Social Worker Theft Manchester http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Greenwood+release.htmMartha Wright Social Worker Theft from service user Manchester http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/04/08/111238/social-worker-struck-off-for-stealing-4000-from-service-user.htmRosalind Shaw Social Worker Misconduct Waltham Forest http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Rosalind+Shaw+conduct+hearing.htmChristopher Hardman Social Worker Conning teenage girls to pose topless Kirklees http://www.lgcplus.com/news/social-care/social-worker-struck-off-over-porn-ruse/5004811.articleMs C Social Worker Abuse and neglect of own child Unknown http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/baby-p/6606365/Heroin-addicted-social-worker-struck-off-over-cover-up-of-own-childs-abuse.htmlTricia Forbes Social Worker Proffesional misconduct Waltham Forest http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/02/15/107296/Social-worker-struck-off-social-care-register.htmJoy Coles Social Worker Placing children at risk Leicester http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/09/social-worker-struck-offDouglas Adams Social Worker Inappropriate sexual comments Barnsley http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Barneley-social-worker-struck-off.5995217.jpEdward Evans Social Worker Deception Aberdeen http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1576910?UserKey=Verona Reeves Social Worker Failing to disclose convictions Birmingham http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2010/01/20/birmingham-social-worker-struck-off-after-failing-to-declare-conviction-65233-25646050/Richard Clasby Social Worker Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshire http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/Social-worker-is-struck-off.5228172.jpAlan Rhodes Social Worker Breach of codes of conduct Leeds http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-174210551.htmlKevin Mence Social Worker Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshire http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/Social-worker-struck-off-after.5468025.jpMrs X Social Worker Biting own child Unknown http://www.theratbook.com/Articles/Article/social_worker_struck_off_after_biting_sonCatherine Watt Social Worker Health,safety,financial and management failings Clydebank http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Darren Macdonald Social Worker Placed children at risk Fife http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Karen Taylor Social Worker Failed to adhere to employers abscence management procedures Glasgow http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Catherine Forrest Social Worker Dishonesty and plagerism Glasgow http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Patricia Higgins Social Worker Failed to adhere to employers reporting practices Glasgow http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Kevin Glancy Social Worker Possessing child porn Edinburgh http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Jackie Mclhargey Social Worker Ran stolen car factory Unknown http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Alan Man Social Worker Accused of using inappropriate and degrading language to young client Glasgow http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Margeret Gribbon Social Worker Accused of 12 counts of misconduct Clydebank http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Derek Horrobin Social Worker Running 3 licensed premises with violence and underage drinking Moray http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Heather Clark Social Worker failing vulnerable familes Aberdeen http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Niamh Duigan Social Worker Possessing class A drugs and 2 counts of offering to supply Manchester http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-work-blog/2009/12/manchester-social-worker-due-i.htmlTracy Dawber Social Worker permitting indecent images of children to be made and one charge of sexual assault on a child under 13 SEFTON http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/southport-news/southport-southport-news/2009/11/20/sefton-council-social-worker-on-child-porn-and-abuse-charge-101022-25209653/Lynda Barnes Social Worker found guilty of hiring a hitman to kill her husband. Bath and North East Somerset http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6529831.eceAndrew Walker Social Worker forming an inappropriate personal relationship with a person who used services. Rotherham http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Rotherham+social+worker+found+guilty+of+misconduct+and+removed+from+register.htmJacinta Hofstetter Social Worker caused distress and anxiety to a child and placed other children at unnecessary risk of harm. Brent http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release-14-07-09.htmStephen Dent Social Worker Assaulted 12 yr old autistic child Croydon http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/courts/Social-worker-guilty-assault-autistic-boy-12/article-1709299-detail/article.htmlCarole Baptiste Social Worker deliberately breaching an inquiry summons Haringey http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-135326/Social-worker-guilty-Climbie-inquiry-absence.htmlPaul Collett Social Worker Misconduct after sending mother to see prophet in Nigeria Southampton http://tbjfansuk.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/paul-collett-guilty-of-misconduct-after-sending-woman-to-see-tb-joshua/David Holder Social Worker behaving inappropriately towards three women colleagues. Gloucester http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucester/headlines/Social-worker-guilty-misconduct/article-1636369-detail/article.htmlRod Ryall Social Worker Charged with 13 sex offences against teenage boys Calderdale http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Former-Calderdale-social-services-chief.5681482.jpJohn Donnelly Social Worker Failed to provide appropriate care to vulnerable adults to their detriment Lanarkshire http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Michael Wrenn Social Worker lied about taking taxis to work to fraudulently claim more than £4 Oldham http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/online_archive/?courts=5&name=misconductLorraine Brimelow Social Worker suspended for six months after taking a child under the care of Stoke-on-Trent City Council back to her own house. Derby http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Social-worker-took-child-home/article-1370931-detail/article.htmlAndrew Bennett Social Worker allowed ‘rapist’ to slip through net in litany of failure Dundee http://news.scotsman.com/dundee/Social-worker-allowed-39rapist39-to.5910966.jpThomas Ritzler Social Worker slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREY http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2064447_colleague_of_underage_sex_social_worker_suspendedDaniel Bester Social Worker suspended for not reporting a colleague who slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREY http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2064447_colleague_of_underage_sex_social_worker_suspendedAlan Carr Social Worker formed an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable child in care. St Helens http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+barred+following+relationship+with+woman.htmDavid Crank Social Worker a string of indecent assaults against a schoolboy Tameside http://www.wilmslowexpress.co.uk/news/s/461/461764_jail_for_pervert_social_worker.htmlMichael Carroll Social Worker indecent assault on a 12-year-old boy Lambeth http://www.independent.co.uk/news/care-worker-had-paedophile-record-1104540.htmlUnknown Social Worker seven-year campaign of sexual abuse of his partner’s young daughter unknown http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6678045/Paedophiles-continued-as-social-workers-because-of-watchdog-failings.htmlUnknown Social Worker abused his three-year-old son unknown http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6678045/Paedophiles-continued-as-social-workers-because-of-watchdog-failings.htmlAndrew Forbes McLauchlan Social Worker dishonesty Sussex http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6678045/Paedophiles-continued-as-social-workers-because-of-watchdog-failings.htmlRuth Hughes Social Worker prolonged and repeated” breaches of the code of practice for social workers Nottingham http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Notts-social-worker-banned/article-341472-detail/article.htmlFrederick Goudy Social Worker five counts of sexual assault. Reading http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2029387_care_worker_pervy_fred_guilty_of_sex_assaultsDavid Michael Kendrick Social Worker assaulting two boys in his care Staffordshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3265321.stmGordon Wateridge Social Worker indecently assaulting teenage children. Jersey http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/excare-worker-abused-kids-on-uk-isle-20090821-esd9.htmlUnknown Social Worker sexually abused a minor Unknown http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Mr+X+release.htmVenetia Tsiaka Social Worker inviting a mother and her children into her home to conclude a formal meeting. Warrington http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news_release_260509.htmBrian Morris Social Worker involved in domestic violence Bournemouth http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/New_release_31-03-09.htmTom Watt Social Worker sexually assaulted women Buckinghamshire http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release_20-03-09.htmAdesola Adeniji-Smith Social Worker Dishonesty Islington http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release_18-03-09.htmPaul Derek Girdlestone Social Worker possessing and distributing indecent images of children Hampshire http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Media_release_26-01-09.htmWladyslaw Piotr Kiczma Social Worker carried out inappropriate physical examinations of children Birmingham http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/25112008news.htmEgbert Elijah Hall Social Worker pursued two vulnerable women who used services. Brent http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20081107.htmRawle McCarthy Social Worker worked whilst temporarily excluded from the Social Care Register Haringey http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080930.htmFrederick Keith Stockdale Social Worker physically restricted a person who used services in a way that breached official guidelines Sunderland http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/20080912.htmEogain Gallagher Social Worker breached the code of practice. West Sussex http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news01092008.htmMr Mncedisi V. Apleni Social Worker found guilty of rape Essex http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/18082008.htmNeil Gabriel Social Worker convicted in 2007 of indecently assaulting a 10-year-old girl Cambridgeshire http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/20080813.htmMark Wooldridge Social Worker found to have had sexual relationships with two vulnerable women who used services and were allocated to him. Somerset http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080710.htmMartine Boyd Social Worker forming an inappropriate personal relationship and for failing to disclose information to her employer.   Bedfordshire http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080714.htmJacqueline Mullins’ Social Worker failing to store and maintain records containing sensitive information. Rotherham http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+cautioned+for+failing+to+maintain+and+store+records.htmVirginia Leckie Social Worker forming an inappropriate relationship and for dishonesty. Hounslow http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+removed+from+register+for+dishonesty+and+inappropriate+relationship.htmStephen Douglas Social Worker formed an inappropriate personal relationship with a woman described as ‘extremely vulnerable’ Northumberland http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+removed+from+Register+following+relationship+with+vulnerable+client.htmHilary Sampson Social Worker breached the profession’s code of practice. Derbyshire http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+suspended+from+register+after+inappropriate+relationship.htmJean Stearn Social Worker breached the Code of Practice Blackpool http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+Blackpool.htmGeoffrey Casey Social Worker Making false allegations to police, nspcc and social services about a couple Witney http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+removed+following+conduct+hearing+in+London-Dec3.htmMr Andrew Atkins Social Worker forming an inappropriate and personal relationship with a person who uses services Leeds http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London-nov26.htmMr Richard Watkins Social Worker breached the Code of Practice London http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+suspended+following+conduct+hearing+in+London+-+Nov2.htmTheresa Guy Social Worker forming a personal relationship with a foster carer Colchester http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London+18oct.htmMs Rosemary Arnold. Social Worker breached the Code of Practice Portsmouth http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London+August.htmMrs Evelyn Mnene Social Worker breached the code of practice http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+10.7.07.htmJohn Bennett Social Worker maintaining a grossly offensive website as well as possessing indecent photographs of children. Lincoln http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+removed+following+conduct+hearing+in+London.htmAnna Orlinski. Social Worker physically restraining a child on two occasions. Gateshead http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+Newcastle.htmMr Steven McGarry. Social Worker failing to declare previous criminal convictions Barrow-in-Furness http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London.htmEric Charlesworth Social Worker inappropriate touching and physical contact with service users. Rugby http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+Birmingham.htmLaura Lee Social Worker driving with excess of alcohol and failing to declare the conviction t Wolverhampton http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London2.htmMichael Powell Tory candidate downloading hardcore child porn Unknown http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/13/teacher_found_guilty_of_kiddie/Alan Burkitt Tory Councillor Convicted of pimping andwell/West Midlands http://www.24dash.com/localgovernment/18137.htmRoger Talboys Tory Councillor multiple sex attacks on children. Wickbar/Bristol http://archive.runcornandwidnesworld.co.uk/1997/2/6/22814.htmlMichael Howden Tory Councillor rape of a teenage girl Wallasey/Merseyside http://archive.runcornandwidnesworld.co.uk/1997/2/6/22814.htmlAndrew Baker Tory Chairman stalking women Wales http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/localheadlines/display.var.935392.0.former_council_leaders_porn_shame.phpKenneth Leadbeater Tory Council leader downloading kiddie porn Dartford/Kent http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/localheadlines/display.var.935392.0.former_council_leaders_porn_shame.phpHarvey Proctor Tory Party MP sex offences Billericay/Essex http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/16/newsid_2524000/2524727.stmIan Harvey Tory Party MP gross indecency Harrow East http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Harvey_%28politician%29Michael Morris Tory Councillor ndecent assault of another man Wrexham/Wales http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/2998019.stmStephen Milligan Tory Party MP grotesque solo bondage and self-strangulation sex act. Eastleigh) http://www.newsmedianews.com/milligan.shtmlPeter Stidworthy Tory Councillor indecent assault of a 15-year old boy Whoberley/Coventry http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/page.cfm?objectid=12420373&method=full&siteid=50003Christopher Pilkington Tory Councillor downloading hardcore child porn Stratford-upon-Avon http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/Pressoffice/Pressreleasearchive/Pressreleases2004/titleDouglas Pallet Tory Councillor Convicted of Assault Colchester/Essex http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19981014/ai_n14200832Freddie Emery Wallis Tory Council leader Charged with sexual assaults on 2 teenage boys Portsmouth/Hampshire http://archive.romseyadvertiser.co.uk/2001/6/14/74339.htmlChris Morgan Tory Mayor indecent assault North Tyneside http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/3303439.stmDean Jenkins Tory Councillor kiddie porn Newport/Wales http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/269329.stmDouglas Campbell Tory Liason Manager downloading child porn. Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/269329.stmGordon Myland Tory Mayor verbal and sexual harassment St Albans/Hertfordshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/269329.stmJim Merrick – Tory Councillor multiple sex attacks on little girls Bradford/Yorkshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/269329.stmTom Spencer Tory MEP smuggling drugs and porn through customs Surrey http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/269329.stmStephen Mertens Tory Official repeatedly raping a six-year old girl Unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3911955.stmSir Ian Horobin MP Tory Cabinst Minister paying young boys for sex Hackney http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:1Rf6RNENUBQJ:hallcarpenter.tripod.com/hca/1962.pdf+Sir+%22Ian+Horobin%22+MP&hl=en&amp;amp;ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=uk&client=firefox-aMike Oram Tory Councillor child porn charges Blandford/North Dorset http://archive.echo-news.co.uk/1999/2/23/224841.htmlBrian Webber Tory Councillor physical assault on a woman civil servant. Bath http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163490&command=displaId=163047Michael Robinson Tory Councillor indecent assault Tendring/Essex http://archive.echo-news.co.uk/1999/2/23/224841.htmlDavid Smith Tory Councillor child porn Felixstowe/Suffolk http://www.iwar.org.uk/pipermail/infocon/2004-February/001064.htmlMichael Brown Tory Party MP homosexual affair Unknown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Brown_%28UK_politician%29Robert Richdale Tory Councillor sex attacks against underage schoolgirls Folkestone http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3899161.stmLouise Burrows Tory Councillor assaulting 3 young children Doncaster/Yorkshire http://www.the-villager.co.uk/Archives.asp?FILE=20020909016&ACT=LEGCallum Thomas Craig Scout Leader sexually abused nine boys Staffordshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3149374.stmPhillip Dunn Barnados Worker sex offences against 17 children North Yorkshire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/228026.stmSamuel McBrearty Childcare Assistant raped and sexually assaulted girls Renfrewshire http://www.redguitars.co.uk/fbga/bbcScotNews28_09_01.phpJohn Porteous Care Home Worker sexually abusing two boys Renfrewshire http://www.redguitars.co.uk/fbga/nov02.phpMary Drummond CARE worker locked up young girls in a cupboard Renfrewshire http://www.redguitars.co.uk/fbga/scotsman02_10_03.phpSean John Drummond Christian Brother indecently assaulting 19 pupils Limerick http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/former-brother-admits-36-indecent-assault-charges-1786176.htmlAnne Poli-Page teacher took her top off in front of schoolboy South Leicestershire http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249727/Obsessed-teacher-took-schoolboy-15-facing-jail.htmlAlison Smith teacher had sex with boy pupil of 15 Aberdeenshire http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092797/Facing-jail-female-special-needs-teacher-sex-boy-pupil-15.htmlAndrew Delafield teacher offered 15 yr old girl £200 for sex Devon http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085818/Teacher-jailed-adopting-false-identity-Bebo-offering-schoolgirl-15–200-sex.htmlAndrew Riley teacher sex act with schoolgirl Lancashire http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482501/Married-teacher-enjoyed-sex-act-schoolgirl-drove-school-minibus.htmlJo Gorman teacher sex act with teenage pupil Devon http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-493344/Female-teacher-suspended-sex-act-teenage-pupil.htmlMadeleine Martin teacher having sex with 15-year-old’ Manchester http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189445/Married-RE-teacher-39-arrested-sex-15-year-old-pupil.htmlLuke Sadowski trainee teacher child sex attempt Southwark http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-192004/Teacher-jailed-child-sex-attempt.htmlElvira Fairhurst teacher sex with pupil Liverpool http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-389209/Woman-teacher-faces-jail-admitting-sex-pupil.htmlIan Blott teacher sex with pupil East Yorkshire http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-392604/Art-teacher-faces-jail-admitting-sex-pupil.htmlMichael Tombs social worker downloaded child porn Doncaster http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199920/Parents-fury-laughable-sentence-social-worker-downloaded-child-porn.htmlKenneth Morton Foster parent sexually abused girls in his care Rotherham http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025305/Ideal-foster-parent-secret-paedophile-gave-sex-lessons-girls-care.htmlColin Inglis council leader indecent assault of boy Hull http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-394034/Former-council-leader-trial-indecent-assault-boy-13.html

February 8, 2010

List of Corrupt , Dishonest and Abusive Social Workers and Related Articles

Filed under: Uncategorized — nojusticeforparents @ 5:17 am

NAME                                                                                                                         COUNCIL

Eleni Cordingley          Placed child at risk.                                    Swansea

Dwight Mcguire            Sexual Abuse.                                                 Darlington

David Cookson              Sex with mentally ill woman               Surrey

Stanley Lansdell           Verbal homophobic abuse                    Bradford

Craig Mcloughlin        Purchasing client alcohol                       Sheffield

Michael Bird                   Filming up womens skirts.                     Newcastle

Julie Andrews                Obtaining money by deception          Unknown

Douglas Makey              Sexual Abuse                                                     Gravesend

Lynne Greenwood      Theft                                                                        Manchester

Martha Wright               Theft from service user                             Manchester

Niamh Duiggan             Possession of class A drug and

2 counts of offering to supply class

drugs.                                                                       Manchester

Rosalind Shaw                Misconduct                                                         Waltham

Forest

Tricia Forbes                    Professional Misconduct                          Waltham

Forest

Christopher                       Conning Teenage girls to pose

Hardman                              Topless .                                                               Kirklees

Joy Coles                               Putting children at risk                            Leicester

Douglas Adams                Inappropriate sexual comments       Barnsley

Edward Evans                   Deception                                                             Aberdeen

Verona Reeves               Failing to disclose conviction              Birmingham

Richard Glasby       Physical and Sexual abuse                      Cambridgeshire

Kevin Mence                       Sexual Abuse                                          Cambridgeshire

Alan Rhodes                       Breach of codes of conduct                       Leeds

Rod Ryall                               Sexual Abuse                                                Calderdale

Darren Macdonald   Placed children at risk                                 Clydebank

John Donnelly            Failed to provide appropriate care

to vulnerable adults.                                     Lanarkshire

Catherine Forrest      Dishonesty and Plagarism                         Glasgow

Kevin Glancy                 Possessing Child Porn                                  Edinburgh

Jackie Mclhargey        Ran stolen car factory                                  Unknown

Alan Man                        Accused of using inappropriate              Glasgow

and degrading language to young client

Margeret Gribbon  Breached codes of conduct                             Clydebank

Heather Clark                  Failing vulnerable familes                        Aberdeen

Mrs X ( cannot be named for legal reasons or more likely protected as she is a social worker )

Bit her own son while under the influence of alcohol

Ms C( cannot be named for legal reasons or more likely protected as she is a social worker )

failed to seek immediate medical attention for her toddler and lied to doctors about how her injuries occurred

Care Council for Wales finds social worker placed child at risk
Daniel Lombard
A social worker who displayed “extremely poor judgement” in her handling of a case in which a child subsequently died has been struck off the register.
A Care Council for Wales conduct committee found Eleni Cordingley had placed Child A at risk by failing to act on two phonecalls from the same person expressing concerns about the family.
Cordingley was a social worker at Swansea Council’s social services department at the time of the case in 2005.
Anonymous phonecalls
The anonymous calls were made to the access and information team between 27 April and 5 May of that year, but Cordingley failed to act appropriately, according to the committee. Child A died later that year.
After admitting misconduct at a hearing in Cardiff, she was told by committee chair Ann Teaney: “By exercising extremely poor judgement you failed to work in a safe and effective way. The misconduct admitted in this case is considered to be so serious that removal from the register is the only appropriate sanction.
“Protection of the public”
“This is necessary for the protection of the public and to uphold the public interest in maintaining confidence in social care services.”
Teaney also expressed concern about Swansea Council’s delay in informing the CCW about the result of a disciplinary hearing involving Cordingley, which concluded in October 2007.
Council’s improvement programme
Swansea Council said in a statement that the child’s death “was a terrible tragedy and [we are] very sorry that it happened”.
It added that a serious case review had found the child was not known to social services prior to the first phonecall. The council said it had acted on the report’s recommendations and worked with the Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales to strengthen its services for vulnerable children.
Wendy Fitzgerald, cabinet member for social services, said the council had already invested £350,000 in recruiting additional social workers this year.
GSCC removes Dwight McGuire from register
McGuire convicted in US for sexual assault on six year old girl
Kirsty McGregor
Tuesday 26 January 2010 12:10
A children’s social worker who sexually abused a six-year-old girl in the US more than 20 years ago has been struck off the social care register.
Dwight McGuire sexually assaulted the girl and indecently exposed himself to her on several occasions over the course of a year from December 1988 while living with her family.
The girl was so distressed by the experience that she waited almost 20 years before reporting it to the police in 2007, a General Social Care Council conduct committee found. McGuire was working as a children’s social worker at Darlington Council at the time the offence came to light.
McGuire, a US national, pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition in Greene County, Ohio, in April 2009 and was sentenced to one year imprisonment.
The committee decided removal from the register was the only appropriate sanction because sexual abuse of children is “particularly serious, especially so when the registrant is in a position of trust”.
The committee took into account the fact that McGuire, who was not present at the hearing in London, had pleaded guilty to the offence in court, had expressed remorse and had undergone counselling shortly after it happened.
But it concluded that confidence in social care services would be “undermined” if he continued to practise as a social worker.
A spokesperson for Darlington Council said: “Once we were aware of the charges against Mr McGuire, his employment by Darlington Council ceased.
“We also spoke to all of the families he had been working with and none of them raised any issues or concerns.”
Sex offender social worker struck off
By Richard Pain
April 27, 2009
A SOCIAL worker who had sex with a mentally ill woman from Camberley has been struck off the social care register.
David Cookson was employed by Surrey County Council as a locum when he slept with the woman known as Ms A after becoming her key worker in 2006.
The 44-year-old from Southampton only admitted having sex with her when she later revealed she was pregnant.
Last year, he was convicted at Guildford Crown Court of having a sexual relationship while in the position of care of a vulnerable adult.
He was placed on the sex offenders’ register for five years and ordered to attend a group work programme.
Now an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) has removed him from the Social Care Register.
The committee said Cookson was aware straight away that his actions breached the social workers’ code of practice but he made no attempt to inform the council of the affair.
Rosie Varley, chairman of the GSCC, said: “Social workers are put in a position of trust and it is therefore vital that they act with integrity while safeguarding vulnerable people.
“Thankfully, the majority of the 80,000 registered social workers find no difficulty in complying with this.
“In order to maintain the safety of vulnerable people we take all matters of law breaking very seriously and will not hesitate to apply the appropriate sanctions.”
Social worker struck off for abusing trans child
By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk • January 7, 2010 – 13:18
The social worker was struck off
A social worker has been found guilty of shouting homophobic abuse at a child in his care.
Stan Lansdell, 52, was struck off today for “gross abuse” of his position. He worked for Bradford council at the time of the offences.
A General Social Care Conduct Council (GSCC) in London heard he had committed 59 counts of misconduct, including failing to follow child protection procedures, providing false references and making inappropriate contact with an 18-year-old girl.
Communitycare.co.uk reports that Lansdell had shouted homophobic abuse at a trans girl known as Child F in April 2007, when the child was aged between 12 and 13.
The child, who chose to wear girl’s clothing and was said to be experiencing gender confusion, said Lansdell had threatened to put her into care and referred to her as a “f***ing little gay b****d”.
Lansdell also made inappropriate phone calls and text messages of a sexual nature to the child’s 18-year-old cousin.
He did not attend the four-day hearing but said in an email sent to the court that the allegations were fabricated.
He was also found to have failed to keep up-to-date records on at least 13 children.
But the the GSCC’s presenting officer said Lansdell had shown “untrustworthiness” and that his behaviour was “potentially dangerous” to vulnerable children.
Committee chair Barry Picken said the committee believed he had “deep-seated personality and attitudinal problems”.
Social worker struck off for ‘extremely poor judgement’
Jan 26 2009 WalesOnline
A social worker has been struck off the professional register for “extremely poor judgment” in a case involving a baby who was later murdered.
Eleni Cordingley, who has been suspended from the City and County of Swansea social services department, is no longer allowed to work as a social worker after she admitted misconduct at a Care Council for Wales (CCW) Conduct Committee Hearing in Cardiff.
Mrs Cordingley admitted she had shown poor professional judgment and had failed to comply with child protection procedures concerning Aaron Gilbert during the hearing last Thursday and Friday.
The 13-month-old boy was murdered after a month-long regime of violence in May 2005.
Andrew Lloyd admitted killing the defenceless child on the eve of a murder trial at Swansea Crown Court in October 2006.
He was later jailed for life with the recommendation he serve a minimum 24 year term.
The baby’s mother Rebecca Lewis, of Swansea, south Wales, was jailed for six years after being found guilty of familial homicide at the end of the four week trial.
Lewis had failed to lift a finger to prevent Aaron’s murder, by her live-in boyfriend Lloyd, despite knowing what was happening.
The jury heard that Aaron’s body carried a “constellation of 50 injuries,” caused by Lloyd over four weeks.
He had undergone beatings, had been thrown across a room by his ears, had been bitten and slapped and forced to inhale smoke.
The Committee in Cardiff was told that the Access and Information team in the Social Services Department of the City and County of Swansea had received two anonymous calls from the same person expressing concerns about the family of Aaron, who was referred to as Child A throughout the hearing.
Anne Teaney, the committee chairwoman, told Mrs Cordingley: “In failing to act appropriately in response to the complaints between April 27 and May 5 2005, you are guilty of misconduct by putting Child A at risk.
“By exercising extremely poor judgment you failed to work in a safe and effective way. The misconduct admitted in this case is considered to be so serious that removal from the Register is the only appropriate sanction.
“This is necessary for the protection of the public and to uphold the public interest in maintaining confidence in social care services.”
During the hearing, the Committee also expressed concern about the delay in the City and County of Swansea informing the Care Council for Wales about the result of a disciplinary hearing for Mrs Cordingley which was concluded in October 2007.
A spokesman for Swansea Council said: “The death of Aaron Gilbert in 2005 was a terrible tragedy and Swansea Council is very sorry that it happened.
“Following the Care Council’s decision we have taken immediate steps to suspend the social worker.
“We will also need to consider what further action may be necessary in the light of the evidence and outcome of the Care Council hearing.
“Following Aaron’s death the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board undertook a Serious Case Review. It found that prior to the first anonymous phone call, Aaron was not known to Social Services. He was not on the at risk register.
“However, it concluded that all the agencies involved with the family had important lessons to learn and made recommendations on how these should be implemented.”
Wendy Fitzgerald, Cabinet Member for Social Services at the council, said: “Our primary concern is protecting and promoting the welfare of children.
“Since Aaron’s tragic death we have introduced a number of improvements to services
“This year alone, we have invested more than £350,000 to recruit additional social workers. We have improved services and will continue to work with the Care and Social Services Inspectorate to bring further improvements.
“We will be looking at the evidence and outcome of the CCW hearing and considering what further actions are necessary.”
Social worker struck off after buying whisky for rehab patient
A social worker, Craig McLoughlin, who offered to buy a double whisky in a pub for a client he had helped through detox has been struck off.
Published: 1:04PM GMT 06 Nov 2009
Mr McLoughlin, who was drunk at the time, told the client, known only as Mr A, not to worry about his dead father, adding ”I’ll be your dad”, and he informed other people in the pub that he was his social worker.
The committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) in London ruled today that the 54-year-old’s actions amounted to misconduct and ordered that he be removed from the professional register.
NHS staff told not to hold meetings where alcohol served in order not to offend Muslims
It heard on Thursday that Mr A had issues with psychosis linked to substance and alcohol misuse and McLoughlin, from Sheffield, helped arrange his attendance at a detox programme.
McLoughlin was on a day off in May 2005 and was intoxicated ”to the level of being drunk” in a city centre pub when Mr A and his girlfriend bumped into him, the hearing was told.
Mr Swan said: ”Mr A and his girlfriend. Miss C. went into the pub for a meal and the registrant invited them to join him at a table where he was sitting by himself, and they did.
”The registrant then offered to buy an alcoholic drink for Mr A, namely whisky, and produced a quantity of money from his pocket.
”He went on to express his view to Mr A that nobody could be without alcohol and that was despite the fact that Mr A had recently undergone detox. Mr A refused the offer of a drink.”
Mr Swan said Mr A’s father had died when he was only 13, which he and McLoughlin had discussed.
”The registrant said to Mr A in a raised voice, ‘Don’t worry about your dad, I’ll be your dad.’
”The registrant went on to shout to other customers, ‘I’m his social worker, this is our social work session’.”
Mr A telephoned his grandmother to tell her what was going on and she reported it to his bosses.
But the committee did not find proved allegations that McLoughlin offered Mr A some magic mushrooms, or asked Mr A to provide him with cannabis or sleeping tablets
McLoughlin was employed by the city council to work for the Sheffield Care Trust in mental health services from September 13 2004 and he worked in the north sector community health team.
He was involved in the case of Mr A from October 2004, said Andrew Swan, representing the GSCC.
McLoughlin was employed on a temporary basis and had a contract which was due to run until October 28 2005.
During the investigation into the incident, McLoughlin accepted he had been very intoxicated and had consumed about one-and-a-half bottles of wine and a few pints and accepted he may have made some inappropriate comments.
He resigned on the day of a disciplinary hearing in September 2005, a month before his contract expired.
Mr Swan read out a statement from Mr A in which he said McLoughlin helped him set up the detox and was ”very encouraging”.
He said McLoughlin was ”hammered” in the pub that day and the incident ”let me down big time”.
Mr A said: ”It was like he did the job so he could get paid at the end of the week.”
Elizabeth Johnson, an area manager for Sheffield Care Trust who led the investigation, read from a statement in which she concluded: ”He was a genuinely nice and committed chap, but with an alcohol problem. The outcome for Mr A was devastating. He was lucky he had his grandmother for support.”
The committee said it was of the view that the evidence of Mr A and his partner was ”reliable” about the offer to buy an alcoholic drink.
It said: ”The committee found, as a fact, that the registrant had been very drunk at the time of the incident and was satisfied, to the required standard, that the witnesses were being truthful when they said that the registrant had offered to buy Mr A a double whisky.”
Newcastle social worker struck off after filming up shopper
20/11/2009
A social worker from Newcastle who modified his tennis bag so he could film up unsuspecting women’s skirts was today removed from the profession by the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
Michael Bird, 55 and formerly of Newcastle, adapted a bag for tennis racquets to conceal a digital camera which he then placed under adult female’s skirts in Tesco, Sainsbury’s, River Island and Fenwick Department store in Newcastle’s city centre on the 24 and 25 June 2008. Some of the images were then edited and downloaded onto his home computer and each lasted several minutes.
He received a caution for voyeurism in February of this year after admitting to the offence. He was working for North Tyneside Council at the time of the offence and was dismissed by them in August 2008 following disciplinary proceedings.
Bird did not attend the one-day hearing held in London but in written representations to the GSCC’s conduct committee he admitted the facts. When interviewed by his former employer, he said he had been showing his son how to use a video recorder for a school project. He also said his friend had discussed a voyeuristic website and they were curious as to whether the footage was staged or obtained without the victim’s consent. He later admitted to the police that he did the filming for his own personal sexual gratification. In mitigation at the employer disciplinary hearing he cited deep-seated problems. In mitigation given to the GSCC’s Committee he cited that his curiosity was heightened as he was prevented from testing boundaries as a child due to his strict upbringing as Jehovah Witness.
The Committee said Bird’s behaviour was a ‘violation of the privacy of these four women who doubtless would have been horrified to learn that they had been filmed in such a way’. They noted that a certain amount of planning and sophistication was required to place a camera in a bag in such a way that it could film up skirts and remain hidden. The filming took place on four separate occasions and over two days and demonstrated a pattern of behaviour rather than a one-off. The Committee found that the behaviour amounted to a very clear breach of the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers which all social workers sign up to when registering.  They described his actions as both ‘degrading and humiliating.’
In deciding to remove him from the register, the Committee noted his lack of insight which they found surprising given that he had previously been seconded to a joint Police/Social Service Department investigation into historic sexual abuse. In this role he set up a support group for survivors of sexual abuse.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said: “If social workers behave in a way, in or outside of work, which calls into question their suitability to be a social worker we must take action in the interests of public protection.
The majority of social workers on our register act with honesty and integrity at all times to deliver high quality care, and in doing so, act as excellent ambassadors for the profession. Those who behave in a way which jeopardises the public trust and confidence in social work that others have worked so hard to build up must be held to account.”
Convicted social worker removed from register
25/09/2009
A social worker convicted of obtaining property by deception and dishonestly making a false representation for gain has been struck off the Social Care Register by the General Social Care Council (GSCC) for misconduct.
Ms Julie Andrews, age 45, worked as a social worker at the time of her conviction.  The GSCC committee heard details of Ms Andrews’ offences, which included the submission of false financial information to her local authority, in order to maintain the pretence that funds were being used to pay for carers when they were not.  The fraud was committed over a period of two and half years and amounted to over £25,000.
Ms Andrews who was present during the conduct hearing admitted that her convictions amounted to misconduct.  However, she offered mitigating reasons for her actions, some of which the committee agreed to hear in private.  In the public hearing, Ms Andrews pointed to the fact that the dishonesty was unrelated to her work, that she did not target vulnerable individuals, that she had an exemplary record prior to her conviction and she offered to pay the money back.
After consideration of the allegations and Ms Andrews’s rationale for her actions, the committee decided to impose a removal order. They felt that “the high value, the high frequency and the planned nature of the dishonesty”, aggravated the nature of her misconduct.  The committee also considered the protection of the public and the need to maintain confidence in social care workers as factors in reaching their decision.
GSCC Chair, Rosie Varley said “The majority of social workers are scrupulously honest and trustworthy professionals.  The GSCC mandate includes promoting and maintaining high standards amongst social workers.  We will take action against any social worker who does not meet the standards as laid down in the code of practice even if their action does not directly affect service users.”
The sanction has immediate effect and means that the registrant will not be able to practise as a social worker.
Kent social worker removed from Social Care Register
18/09/2009
An independent Committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) yesterday struck off a social worker from Kent after hearing allegations of sexual abuse dating back to the 1980s.
Douglas Makey, aged 49 and from Tonbridge, worked as a Residential Social Worker in a children’s home in Gravesend during the 1980s when the alleged sexual abuse occurred. He was found by the committee to have abused Ms A, when she was around 9 to 10 years old and Ms B, when she was around 10 to 12 years old.  Ms A and Ms B lived at the home during the eighties although not at the same time. Ms A gave evidence to the committee who described her as a convincing and honest witness leaving them ‘in little doubt that what she was saying was true’.
Ms B did not attend the hearing but the committee considered evidence including the statement she gave to the police and letters she wrote at the time.
Mr Makey was not present at the hearing and chose not to be represented.  The allegations, which Makey denied, were investigated by the police in 2006.  The Crown Prosecution Service did not prosecute due to insufficient evidence.
In coming to their decision to remove Makey from the register, the committee said these were ‘very serious findings of sexual abuse of two vulnerable children in a residential care home.’ They described it as ‘abuse carried out for his sexual gratification and at night time.’ The women were described by the committee as young children who were particularly vulnerable and ‘trusted Makey implicitly.’ They said Makey had groomed one of the women with treats and affection and had taken advantage of the other woman’s ‘obvious affection for him’. Mr Makey’s behaviour was of a most serious nature repeated over a prolonged period and against targeted, vulnerable young children in care.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said “People who use services must be able to trust their social worker and have every right to expect them to be of good character, acting in their client’s best interests at all times. The vast majority of social workers are committed to this and the high standards set out in the GSCC’s code of practice. As the regulator of social workers, we will not hesitate to take action against the minority who abuse their position of responsibility and the trust placed in them.”
Social worker struck off register following theft conviction
28/10/2009
A social worker who stole over £50,000 in cash from a charity she worked for has been removed from the profession by an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
Mrs Lynne Greenwood, 57, worked as a Service Director in the Manchester office of Creative Support Limited, a charity which provides social care services for people with learning disabilities and other mental health issues. She was convicted at Manchester Crown Court in November 2008 of two counts of theft after being found guilty of stealing £52,742.35 in cash from the charity over a period of 18-20 months. Greenwood was given an 11 months suspended prison term over two years on condition that the money was returned to Creative Support Limited, which she has since done.
Greenwood, who was not present at the GSCC’s hearing, admitted in a letter to the committee that her convictions amounted to misconduct. In mitigation, she said that no service user was directly harmed by her actions and her actions did not reflect negatively on social workers as she was not employed as a social worker at the time.  She added that she was compulsive spender but was receiving help to address these issues.
In finding Greenwood guilty of professional misconduct, the committee said her actions constituted a serious breach of the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers. They noted that Greenwood occupied a senior position within the charity and had deprived service users of valuable funds.
In removing her from the register, they cited sections of the code relating to maintaining the trust of service users and upholding confidence in social care services. They said allowing Greenwood to remain on the register after admitting such grave offences of dishonesty would be “wholly inappropriate and disproportionate”. By saying in her letter to the committee that money was not taken directly from service users, Greenwood “failed to demonstrate insight into the seriousness and impact of her actions.”
GSCC Chair, Rosie Varley, said “The vast majority of registered social workers are upright and honest professionals who abide by the law and the GSCC code of practice.  People who use services need to have confidence in social workers. The GSCC must take action against registrants who fail to meet the high standards expected of them in the interest of public protection.”
Social worker struck off after stealing money from service user
08/04/2009
A woman convicted of stealing money from a vulnerable service user has been removed from the Social Care Register by an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
Martha Wright, 33 and from Manchester, was employed as a social worker for Trafford Council in their health and disability team when the allegations came to light. Over a period of nine months, Wright stole a total sum of £4,747 from Ms A, an adult user of services who had a mental incapacity. Wright was convicted in Manchester Crown Court on 22 November 2007 of nine counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception and was given a suspended sentence and 240 hours community service.
The GSCC Committee said Wright had significantly abused her position of trust and had caused direct harm to a particularly vulnerable service user who was left with virtually nothing in her bank account.
They said Wright’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be a registered social worker, and that dishonesty associated with professional practice is so damaging to a person’s suitability to be a social worker and to public confidence in social care services that removal was the only appropriate sanction. She had breached the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers that all social workers sign up to when registering with the GSCC.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said: “In order to maintain public confidence in social workers, they are expected to act with integrity, abiding by the law and the GSCC code of practice. It is of the up most importance that vulnerable people are protected, and we therefore take matters of law breaking by social workers extremely seriously. Thankfully the majority of the 80,000 registered social workers find no difficulty in complying with this, but we will not hesitate to apply the appropriate sanctions if needs be.”
Wright was removed from the register with immediate effect. She has the right of appeal to the independent First-tier Tribunal (Care Standards).
Social worker struck off register following misconduct
05/10/2009
A 65-year-old social worker has been removed from the Social Care Register by an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) for misconduct.
During the four-day hearing, the committee heard allegations that Rosalind Shaw, who worked for the London Borough of Waltham Forest’s Intermediate Care Assessment Team (ICAT) based at Whipps Cross hospital, failed to meet standards of practice required as a social worker.  The allegations included: failure to assess users of services in accordance with employer requirements; failure to report an allegation of abuse by a carer through the proper procedure; an inability to handle confidential patient information safely; and acting without management consultation.
Shaw did not attend the hearing at which the committee heard from several witnesses including Ms Shaw’s ICAT manager, who attested to her inability to adhere to correct procedures as set out in the code of practice for social workers, as well as to follow management instructions.
The committee concluded that in view of the persistent and serious nature of Rosalind Shaw’s behaviour and in order to protect the public, she should be removed from the Register.  In reaching their decision, the committee highlighted the fact that Rosalind Shaw had “consistently failed to follow national standards and local procedures”.  Her behaviour had an adverse impact on the performance and effectiveness of colleagues and staff in other agencies as well as failing to safeguard people who use services.
The GSCC’s Chair, Rosie Varley, said: “When social workers register with the General Social Care Council, they agree to abide by a code of practice. The vast majority of social workers practice in accordance with the code, but where someone has failed to maintain standards of practice, the GSCC will take action to ensure standards are upheld and public confidence is maintained”
The sanction has immediate effect and means that the registrant will not be able to practise as a social worker.
Social worker struck off after conning teenage girls into posing topless
04/08/2009
A man from West Yorkshire has been removed from the register of social workers by the General Social Care Council (GSCC) after encouraging vulnerable teenagers known to his youth offending team to pose naked.
Christopher Hardman, 55, from Batley, West Yorkshire, was employed by Kirklees Metropolitan Council as a team leader in their Youth Offending Team when he sent text messages and letters to a number of young women attached to the service.
Acting as ‘Sue’, ‘Ayesha’, ‘Jane Attwood’ and ‘Peter’ from ‘Vamp model agency’ he asked the girls, some as young as 16, to attend lingerie, topless and nude photo shoots in exchange for money.
Claiming to be from ‘Image Creations’, he also targeted another woman, aged over 18, who was the daughter of one of his work colleagues. She and four of the service users attended photographic sessions arranged by Hardman, who was acting under an alias. In February 2006, police searched his house after these allegations were made and he was found to be in possession of cannabis for which he accepted a formal caution.
Hardman admitted a statement of the facts which the committee found supported the allegation and admitted that his actions amounted to misconduct. He did not attend the hearing, held today (Tuesday) in central London.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said: “Social work relies on the existence of a wholly professional relationship, in circumstances in which users of services have little choice but to be trusting. The vast majority of social workers, and there are almost 80,000 on our register, have no difficulty with this because they are absolutely committed to working in the best interest of the service user at all times.
People who need social care services have the right to be protected from social workers who seriously abuse the trust placed in them, for the purpose of sexual gratification or for any other purpose. A social worker who abuses this trust should forfeit the privileges which come with registration and be removed from the workforce.”
Hardman, who resigned from Kirklees in 2007 and has not worked as a social worker since, was removed from the register with immediate effect and will not be able to practise as a social worker. He has the right of appeal to the independent First-tier Tribunal (Care Standards)
Social worker struck off after daughter is seriously injured
19/11/2009
A social worker who failed to seek immediate medical attention for her toddler and lied to doctors about how her injuries occurred has been removed from the profession by the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons and was referred to as Ms C during the two-day hearing, was also found to have had a heroin addiction which she did not disclose to her employer.
On 7 March 2008, Ms C’s 13-month-old daughter was admitted to hospital with what doctors described as ‘life threatening injuries’ which were caused by the child’s father. The medical evidence showed she had a perforated intestine, which led to peritonitis which was consistent with blows to her abdomen. She also had serious bruising to her back and the doctors found an older fracture to a bone in her skull. The father has since been convicted of grievous bodily harm and was jailed for two years.
The Committee, which met over two days in London, heard that Ms C did not seek immediate medical attention for the child when she discovered she was unwell. Ms C, who did not attend the hearing or provide mitigation, later failed to provide a truthful account to the doctors of how her daughter’s injuries occurred, thereby jeopardising her health, and gave untrue evidence to an unnamed County Court in order to protect the child’s father.
They also heard evidence from a representative of Ms C’s employer who conducted an investigation after discovering her use of heroin and methadone. The local authority, which also cannot be named, found she failed to disclose her addiction on their pre-employment health questionnaire and during the term of her employment there, between January 2006 and 3 December 2007. She worked in adult services.
In removing Ms C from the register and barring her from practice, the committee found that she lied to protect her partner at the expense of her daughter’s wellbeing and health. They noted that a delayed diagnosis potentially threatened the child’s life. She showed a persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her actions and continuing and profound dishonesty. Her actions demonstrated  a clear departure from the standards set out in the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers which all social workers sign up to.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said: “People who use services need to have confidence that social workers are committed to ensuring their welfare and safety and that of others. The majority of the 93,000 social workers on our register do not think twice about doing this.
Social worker struck off register for offering whisky to ‘recovering alcoholic’
09/11/2009
A social worker who offered whisky to a client he helped through detox has been removed from the Social Care Register by an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
Craig McLoughlin, 54, who was employed by Sheffield City Council was found to have offered to buy Mr A, a user of services, an alcoholic drink despite knowing that he had been through detox for alcohol dependency. McLoughlin was drunk at the time and said to Mr A, whose father had passed away, words to the effect of “don’t worry about your Dad; I’ll be your Dad” and then went on to disclose to other people in the pub that he was Mr A’s social worker.
McLoughlin, who was not present at the two-day hearing, had previously admitted in a witness statement dated 16 August 2005 that he had “abused his position as a social care worker” and “made some inappropriate comments”. He also accepted that he had a “drinking problem”.
In finding McLoughlin guilty of professional misconduct, the committee said there had been a “serious departure” from the standards set out in the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers which all social workers sign up to as a condition of registration. They cited sections of the code relating to maintaining the trust of people who use services and upholding confidence in social care services.
The committee was of the view that McLoughlin’s problem with alcohol meant that he would continue to pose a risk to people who use services until he had addressed the problem. There was no evidence before the committee to show that he had sought professional help and that he no longer had an alcohol problem.
The committee was particularly influenced by the fact that McLoughlin had disclosed confidential information and had behaved in a manner that would have caused considerable harm to Mr A had he not been strong willed.
However, they did take into account the mitigating factors set out in McLoughlin’s witness statement as well as his previous good record.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said: “Social workers have a duty to act in the interest of service users at all times and should avoid any situations that may be harmful to the service user. The GSCC exists to ensure public protection and to promote high standards among social workers and will take action against those who do not abide by the Code of Practice. The vast majority of social workers comply with our codes and work hard to support vulnerable people on a daily basis.”
Mr McLoughlin was removed from the register with immediate effect. He has the right of appeal to the Health, Education and Social Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.
Waltham Forest social worker removed from the register
18/02/2008
A social worker who worked for Waltham Forest Borough Council has been removed from the Social Care Register at a hearing held by the General Social Care Council (GSCC), after being found guilty of professional misconduct.
At the four day hearing in London, Tricia Forbes admitted failing to initiate a child protection inquiry after a 13 year old girl said she had been physically abused by her father. Forbes, who at the time was a deputy team manager, failed to arrange for the child and her siblings to be accommodated overnight in a place of safety and did not inform the police, child protection response unit and partner agencies of the disclosure.
The hearing was also told that the social worker dropped the child off at the side of the road without conducting a risk assessment and failed to accompany another member of staff to meet the girl’s parents, despite being directed to do so by her manager. At a meeting convened after the child was admitted to hospital, which Forbes chaired, she did not inform colleagues of her involvement in the case. The Committee felt in doing so, the registrant had put her own interests above that of the child and this was ‘inexcusable’.
The Committee concluded that the actions taken by Forbes had put the child at serious risk. In coming to their decision, the Committee noted that the social worker had provided contradictory accounts of her involvement in the case and was not satisfied that she had demonstrated a consistent insight into her failings. At times, they said, she had demonstrated a defensive attitude and was seeking to shift responsibility onto others when giving evidence at the hearing. Forbes was also found to have not recorded her actions in the child’s file, breaching a fundamental principle of social work practice.
Sir Rodney Brooke, Chair of the GSCC, said: “Fortunately, professional negligence in social work is very rare and the tens of thousands of social workers registered with us provide only the highest standards of care to vulnerable members of our society.
In order to protect the reputation of the very many social workers who do an outstanding job day in day out, it’s vital that we take action where misconduct has been found. By addressing poor practice where we find it, we hope to be able to preserve trust in the profession and ensure public confidence.”
Removal from the register means that the registrant will not be able to practice as a social worker. Registrants have a right of appeal to the independent Care Standards Tribunal
Social worker struck off after failing to protect 13-month-old toddler who was beaten to death
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 11:27 AM on 27th January 2009
Comments (17)
Add to My Stories
Killed: Aaron Gilbert died from brain damage after he was attacked by Andrew Lloyd in 2006. His social worker Eleni Cordingley was struck off after failing to protect him
A social worker has been struck off over the brutal murder of a toddler whose injuries left him looking ‘like the Elephant Man’.
Social services official Eleni Cordingley was banned from working after failing to protect 13-month-old Aaron Gilbert from his mother’s brutal boyfriend.
Mrs Cordingley failed to follow proper child protection procedures which could have saved little Aaron from his savage beatings.
A conduct hearing was told Aaron died from brain damage after he was attacked by his mother’s boyfriend Andrew Lloyd.
One neighbour later told police that Aaron was so deformed by his injuries before his death that he ‘looked like the Elephant Man’.
In 2006 Lloyd was jailed for a minimum of 24 years for the baby’s murder and mother Rebecca Lewis became the first British woman to be convicted of allowing her child to be murdered by a violent partner.
She was jailed for six years for familial homicide by failing to protect her child.
Social services in Swansea, South Wales, had two anonymous calls from the same ‘whistle blower’ with fears about Aaron’s safety.
But Cordingley failed to respond properly to protect Aaron – when alarm bells should have rung.
A conduct hearing told Cordingley: ‘By exercising extremely poor judgement you failed to work in a safe and effective way.
‘The misconduct admitted in this case is considered to be so serious that removal from the register is the only appropriate sanction.
‘This is necessary for the protection of the public and to uphold the public interest in maintaining confidence in social care services.’
Jailed: Rebecca Lewis, pictured with Aaron, became the first woman in Britain to be jailed for allowing her child to be murdered by Lloyd, right
Aaron was beaten to death by Lloyd, 23, after social workers, police and health service staff missed repeated chances to prevent the tragedy.
Lewis, 21, regularly watched Lloyd beat the little boy – causing more than 50 injuries.   She once saw him pick up Aaron by his ears and throw him across the room.
Bullying Lloyd would swear at the boy and blow smoke into his face. He once promised ‘to smash your little head in’.
Lloyd would flick the baby’s ears and feet, making him scream in pain, and Aaron would ‘shiver in fright’ at the sight of him. Lewis also said she saw Lloyd swing the child around violently by the ankles.
Sharon Hurlow, 53, rang Swansea social services twice in a week when she noticed  13-month-old Aaron had alarming bruises on his body.
She said: ‘I feel like we’ve finally won. I tried to warn social services, but nothing happened.
‘Little Aaron would be running around now, off to school, if people had listened to me.
‘Instead, he’s in a small dark grave all alone – his little body black and blue.
‘You think that if you see a child being hurt and have the guts to report it, then something will be done.’
Aaron’s father Gareth Gilbert said: ‘I am pleased to hear about this. I agree with every word of the judgment.
‘Nothing will ever replace Aaron. But I think this person involved should make an apology to me personally.’
Mrs Cordingely was removed from the social worker register at the hearing by the Care Council for Wales Conduct Committee Hearing in Cardiff.
A Swansea council spokesman said: ‘The death of Aaron Gilbert in 2005 was a terrible tragedy and Swansea council is very sorry that it happened.
‘Following the care council’s decision we have taken immediate steps to suspend the social worker.
‘We will also need to consider what further action may be necessary in the light of the evidence and outcome of the care council hearing.
‘It found that prior to the first anonymous phone call, Aaron was not known to social services. He was not on the at-risk register.
‘However, it concluded that all the agencies involved with the family had important lessons to learn and made recommendations on how these should be implemented.’
The council said more than £350,000 has been spent in the last year to recruit extra social workers.
Paedophile social worker is struck off
8:56am Saturday 23rd January 2010
By Jim Entwistle »
A MAN responsible for the welfare of vulnerable North-East children has been struck off as a social worker for sexually assaulting a six-year-old girl.
Convicted paedophile Dwight McGuire worked in Darlington for four years, although his offence was committed some years before he moved to the town.
Yesterday, more details of his crimes came to light at a hearing of the General Social Care Council, in London.
It emerged that the 41-yearold American, who moved to Darlington after he secured a job as a social worker with Darlington Borough Council, had exposed himself to his victim numerous times, before indecently touching her while masturbating.
McGuire was sentenced to a year in jail in May last year after he admitted gross sexual imposition, although a search of the US sex offenders’ register revealed he is now a free man. He is listed as living in a village in Montana.
He was detained by officials at an airport in Minnesota in January last year, after his victim, who is now an adult, told police of her ordeal. The incidents happened in 1988 and 1989 while McGuire was a student. Yesterday’s committee heard that after she told police, the girl phoned McGuire in Darlington to obtain an admission from him.
With police listening in, McGuire confessed.
He was arrested shortly after when he returned to the US to visit his dying father.
Committee chairwoman Jeanette Cragg said: “This was a serious departure from the code of conduct, and confidence in social services would be undermined if he was allowed to continue as a social worker.”
Mrs Cragg said McGuire’s conduct was aggravated by a breach of trust, because the incidents were over a prolonged period and because in 2007, when the girl told the police about it, she was still deeply affected.
An investigation found no evidence that McGuire had committed any offence while working in Darlington.
Social worker struck off for inaction
Joy Coles, 55, from Leicester ‘was dishonest’ and did not allocate cases to be investigated
John Carvel, social affairs editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 April 2009 17.02 BST
Article history
A senior social worker has been struck off the professional register for putting children at risk by failing to allocate 90 cases for investigation.
The General Social Care Council (GSCC) said Joy Coles, 55, a team manager in the duty and assessment service at Leicester council’s children’s department, knowingly misled her managers about the number of unallocated cases, and backdated closing dates of other cases to cover her tracks.
In one instance, she took no action into allegations of physical abuse towards children in a family. The children were eventually put on the child protection register, but the committee said the delay could have put the children at risk of harm.
The GSCC said Coles also failed to allocate other child protection cases that should have been dealt with urgently. Her behaviour “called into question her suitability to remain on the register and also harmed the reputation and standing of the social care profession.”
Coles was a team manager in Leicester for four years to November 2005.
The GSCC added: “By her persistent inaction and failures she placed children at risk of harm. She failed to safeguard vulnerable children. She was a team manager responsible for allocating cases and fundamentally failed in this regard.”
Coles breached the code of practice for social care workers because “she put service users at risk, was dishonest, failed to communicate with managers about these issues, and was unreliable and lacked dependability.”
Rosie Varley, chair of the GSCC, said: “All social workers sign up to a code of practice when they register with us and the majority of the 95,000 people on the social care register find no difficulty with being honest and upholding public confidence in the profession. It is vital that social workers do all they can to protect vulnerable people. Any concerns raised about a child’s welfare should be taken seriously by a social worker, and we will take the appropriate action if we think children have been let down and put at further risk.”
Coles has a right of appeal to an independent tribunal.
Barneley social worker struck off for suggestive comments
Published Date: 19 January 2010
A FORMER senior social worker from Barnsley was struck off the professional register for misconduct today.
Douglas Adams was assistant director of children’s services at Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council when he made a series of comments to four female colleagues, some of which were of a sexual nature, the General Social Care Council heard.
He was
dismissed from his post in 2006 following a disciplinary investigation into a complaint made by one of the women, a pregnant administrative worker who said Adams suggested she should have an abortion.
The 56-year-old from Nottingham did not attend the two-day hearing in central London.
Allegations that Adams had a conversation with the pregnant woman, known as Ms D, during which he told her “it would be easy to have an abortion because her pregnancy was not that far gone” were found proved, along with other comments including suggesting she would end up with no job and would lose her figure.
In its decision, the conduct panel stated: “Although Ms D’s evidence was hearsay, when he was interviewed by Ms (Deborah) Lightfoot on June 8 2006 the registrant did not deny the specific allegations which now form the basis of the formal allegation for the present proceedings.
“Further, he did not deny the specific allegations during the course of his disciplinary hearing on August 2 2006.
“The committee was impressed by the fact that Ms D herself did not appear to be motivated by malice or personal gain and did not wish the registrant to get into trouble.”
Adams, who lost an appeal against his dismissal by Barnsley council, suggested during inquiries into Ms D’s complaint that he had been trying to “shock” her into acknowledging the difficulties she could face as a young mother, the hearing was told.
The evidence of another woman, Ms A, that Adams told her he could imagine her in a “Miss Whiplash” outfit was also found proved.
Adams was meanwhile found to have told Ms A that an administrative worker – Ms B – was “completely off her head” and “all over the place” because she was undergoing fertility treatment.
According to the GSCC, Adams whispered an obscene comment into the ear of another female colleague – Ms C – during an office Christmas meal.
Suspending Adams from the GSCC register would not have been a sufficient sanction, according to the conduct committee.
In its decision it said “the right of potential colleagues to protection from abuse was more important than the registrant’s own fortunes” and said Adams had shown “little insight into his repeated failings”.
“The committee took into account evidence of the registrant’s previous good character and some evidence of the registrant’s apologies to Ms A,” the decision stated.
“The committee also took into account the registrant’s acknowledgement that his conversation with Ms D had been highly inappropriate.
“However, the committee was not satisfied that the registrant’s proven behaviour was unlikely to be repeated.”
The panel, chaired by Barry Picken, concluded: “The committee found that the registrant’s behaviour demonstrated a blatant disregard for the values of social care standards set out in the code of practice for social care workers and that a removal order was the only proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case.”
Social worker struck off for deception over house
BY CALUM ROSS
Published: 26/01/2010
A NORTH-EAST social worker has been struck off after claiming his son was a heroin user in order to have him moved into a house earmarked for ex-offenders.
Scottish social work regulators ruled that Edward Evans “seriously abused his position” in Aberdeen as a senior member of community safety charity Sacro.
It follows a disciplinary hearing which heard he had assigned his son a temporary home in the city despite not meeting the criteria.
Mr Evans, of Piper Place, Portlethen, moved his son to the front of Sacro’s waiting list by claiming he was embroiled in a “personal crisis” and was “frequently smoking heroin”. He went on to try to secure the property permanently for his son, attempting to hide his actions from colleagues in the process.
A Scottish Social Services Council disciplinary panel found he had committed misconduct by engaging “in a course of deception over a lengthy period” in securing an advantage for his son to which he was not entitled.
It said: “The registrant occupied a senior position of trust but seriously abused that position and the trust placed in him.”
Mr Evans refused to comment when asked about the findings by the Press and Journal.
The name and the address of the son in question are not known.
Mr Evans had been employed as a team leader at Sacro’s supported accommodation service in Aberdeen since November, 2006.
He was suspended by Sacro in October, 2008, pending an investigation into the claims and resigned five weeks later before the disciplinary proceedings had concluded.
robust
A spokesman for Sacro, which runs 25 tenancies for former offenders in the city, said: “Sacro follows robust disciplinary policies and procedures and places a high priority on the conduct of its staff.
“These policies and procedures are in place to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its staff, service users and the public.
“In the case referred to, Sacro immediately notified the Scottish Social Services Council of the suspension of an employee and have at all times assisted the council fully with their investigation of this case.”
The tenancy allocated by Mr Evans was provided by Aberdeen City Council, which contracts Sacro to help former offenders resettle in the community.
A spokesman for the local authority said: “Aberdeen City Council supports the work of the Scottish Social Services Council and the prompt action taken by Sacro.”
The social services council’s chief executive, Anna Fowlie, said: “It is essential that social workers act with integrity and honesty at all times.
“Mr Evans failed to follow procedures which are designed to promote and safeguard the wellbeing and safety of people who use services.”
Birmingham social worker struck off after failing to declare conviction
Jan 20 2010
An experienced social worker from Birmingham has been struck off after she failed to declare she had been convicted of theft.
The General Social Care Council (GSCC) also accepted an allegation that Verona Reeves threatened her landlords and the couple’s children.
A GSCC conduct committee said Reeves’ behaviour amounted to misconduct and said “such a grave case” necessitated her removal from the professional register.
The 48-year-old from Birmingham was convicted on December 18, 2006, at Dudley Magistrates’ Court of one count of theft of a credit card, two counts of theft from cash machines and four counts of obtaining property by deception. A further 22 offences were taken into consideration, the GSCC heard.
The committee found Reeves failed to inform the GSCC of her criminal record when she applied for registration with the regulator.
She also continued to work for Birmingham City Council until May 2008 despite having her registration suspended for six months in March 2008. Reeves’s dishonesty was “deliberate, systematic and prolonged” the committee concluded.
The allegation that she told her landlords words to the effect of “I know where you live and I know where your kids go to school and they better watch out” in June 2006 was also considered misconduct as the committee said it was “such seriously inappropriate behaviour for a member of the social work profession”.
Neil Grant, presenting the case for the GSCC, said Reeves was a senior and experienced practitioner, particularly in the area of mental health, who had obtained a diploma in social work in 1989.
Between 1989 and 2003 she worked as a social worker in Birmingham and London, latterly at Enfield Council, but left to become a full-time mother in August 2003.
Mr Grant said, while it was not clear precisely when Reeves returned to work, by May 2007 she was employed by Birmingham City Council via the Bluecare recruitment agency but failed to mention her convictions when going through the GSCC registration process. Reeves, who did not attend the hearing, has 28 days to appeal.
Social worker is struck off for relationship with client
Published Date: 01 May 2009
By Tara Dundon
A SENIOR social worker who fathered two children with one of his vulnerable clients has been struck off.
A two-day General Social Care Council hearing heard that Richard Clasby (46) physically and sexually abused the woman during a four-year affair.
He admitted one allegation – that he had told her he would lose his job if she exposed their relationship – but was also accused of 11 offences related to drugs, aggressive behaviour, verbal abuse, threats to suffocate their child and demands for sex.
The hearing was told the pair entered into an affair and the woman, who cannot be named, claimed during their four years together he bullied her into silence and threatened to suffocate their children and commit suicide if their relationship was made public.
The committee found all the allegations had been proven.
In a joint statement, chief executive, of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust Karen Bell and Cambridgeshire County Council’s executive director of community and adult services Rod Craig said: “This kind of behaviour will never be tolerated.
“We will do everything we can to ensure that such an incident does not happen again in Cambridgeshire.”
Social worker in breach is struck off
Published Date: 04 February 2008
By Alison Bellamy
A SOCIAL worker from Leeds has been removed from the Social Care Register at a hearing held by the General Social Care Council (GSCC), after being found to have breached the code of practice.
Alan Rhodes, who was employed by Leeds City Council, was found guilty of misconduct by the committee for forming an inappropriate personal relationship with a person who uses services.
Rhodes was the allocated social worker to that person and herADVERTISEMENT
children, who had been on the Child Protection Register.
The Committee heard that two of the children were moved to live with their father in Scotland without the knowledge of social services in Leeds or East Renfrewshire.
Rhodes had played a part in the move and was aware child protection procedures should have been followed.
Despite being suspended by Leeds City Council at the time, the Council decided that Rhodes had a responsibility to inform social services in Leeds about the move.
As a social worker with years of experience, he would have been aware of the risks involved in moving children without the correct procedures being followed. The children were later placed in care in Scotland.
The Committee concluded that Alan Rhodes’ behaviour fell far below the standards expected of a registered social worker.
They were particularly concerned by his failure to make the welfare of the children paramount.
The Committee also noted he had displayed no insight or remorse in disciplinary interviews, in the intervening period or in communications with the GSCC.
Sir Rodney Brooke, Chair of the GSCC, said: “When people become social care workers and register with the General Social Care Council, they agree to abide by a set of rules set out in our codes of practice.”
Abusive social worker Stanley Lansdell struck off
Jan 8 2010 by Sophie Doughty, The Journal
A SOCIAL worker who swore at a vulnerable child and sexually harassed a member of his family has been struck off.
Stanley Lansdell of Chester-le-Street, County Durham, used false references when applying for work through a specialist recruitment agency.
And after getting a position with a council in Yorkshire, he went on to verbally abuse a child in his care with cruel taunts and sent the youngster’s cousin perverted text messages.
The 52-year-old was yesterday removed from the Social Care Register after a hearing in London heard these and a catalogue of other allegations relating to his professional conduct.
The General Social Care Council’s conduct committee was told how, after getting a job with Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Mr Lansdell was charged with the care of a 13-year-old boy, known as Child F.
On one occasion he phoned the vulnerable youngster, who had a tendency to cross-dress, told him to “get lost”, swore at him and called him “gay”.
He told Child F that no one would believe him if he made a complaint and that he would be taken into care. The social worker also made highly inappropriate remarks to a member of Child F’s family.
He sexually harassed an 18-year-old woman, who he met through his work with the child, telephoning her in the middle of the night and sending her highly inappropriate text messages.
Mr Lansdell also preyed on another woman, who was in his care. He visited her home on several occasions, staying for more than two hours.
On one occasion he repeatedly told the woman she should not stay in the flat, and invited her to stay with him, telling her she could have a bath at his home.
After a two-day hearing, which Mr Lansdell did not attend, the committee determined he was guilty of misleading his employers and breaching professional boundaries while working for Bradford Social Services between February 2006 and April 2007. The committee agreed he had committed other blunders, such as failing to keep up-to-date files and giving misleading evidence in court.
Mr Lansdell was also accused of verbally abusing a colleague while working in a previous role at Darlington Borough Council, swearing at her and calling her fat.
The committee decided Mr Lansdell should be removed from the social work register immediately, saying he had serious attitude and personality problems and had grossly abused the trust of those he was supposed to be looking after.
Smethwick social worker faces being struck off after intimidation claims
Dec 7 2009 by Ben Goldby, Sunday Mercury
A SOCIAL worker accused by her neighbours of threatening their children could be struck off.
Verona Reeves, from Smethwick, West Midlands, who has previous convictions for theft, will go before the General Social Care Council’s (GSCC) panel in London to face charges that she intimidated the youngsters in front of their mum and dad.
She is accused of telling two parents in June 2006: “I know where you live and I know where your kids go to school, and they better watch out.”
Ms Reeves also faces action over criminal charges brought in December 2006 for theft and obtaining property by deception, and her failure to inform the GSCC about criminal proceedings against her.
She was convicted by Dudley Magistrates Court on December 18, 2006, of stealing a Mint credit card, stealing £300 in cash, buying clothes with the stolen credit card, stealing £200 from Royal Bank of Scotland and buying £190 of shopping at Tesco with the stolen card.
Her failure to inform the GSCC of her convictions means that she faces charges of dishonesty when she goes before the disciplinary board.
It also emerged last night that Reeves was suspended in March, 2008, for six months following another hearing, but continued working for Birmingham City Council until the following May, flouting the GSCC’s ruling.
A spokesman for Birmingham City Council said: “Until the GSCC hearing has been dealt with it would not be appropriate for us to comment on any of the details surrounding this case.”
Ms Reeves had been due to face a full hearing of the GSCC’s independent conduct committee tomorrow, but the case has now been postponed while she consults with her legal team. The panel could strike her off the GSCC register or suspend her from practising as a social worker.
A spokeswoman for the GSCC said: “To work as a social worker you must be registered with the GSCC, and we have an independent conduct committee which will review who is, or is not, suitable to stay on that register.”
In October a government review into Birmingham City Council’s social services department branded it “not fit for purpose”.
The inquiry was commissioned after eight children known to social services died in the space of just four years, including seven year-old Khyra Ishaq, from Handsworth, who was found starved to death last year.
Councillor Les Lawrence, cabinet member for children, young people and families, claims that more social workers have now been recruited.
Social worker struck off after child sex offences
Latest news
ADVERTISEMENT
Published Date: 17 July 2009
A SOCIAL worker has been struck off after being convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl.
Kevin Mence (43), formerly of Walter Howes Crescent, Middleton, was employed as a social worker by Cambridgeshire County Council when the allegations came to light.
This week he was removed from the Social Care Register by an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
Mence was jailed in November last year after Norwich Crown Court convicted him of twice sexually assaulting the girl, who was not his client.
He was also convicted of making indecent images of a child and possessing over 700 indecent images of children, some of which he distributed.
He was jailed for 16 months, placed on the Sex Offenders Register for ten years and issued with a Disqualification Order preventing him from working with children.
The GSCC committee found Mence guilty of serious misconduct and said his offending behaviour represented a serious departure from the relevant standards in the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers that all social workers sign up to when they register with the GSCC.
It said that in order to protect vulnerable people and uphold public confidence in social care services the only appropriate sanction was immediate removal from the register.
Rosie Varley, chair of the GSCC, said: “All social workers have a responsibility to act appropriately and with integrity, abiding by the law and the GSCC code of practice.
“Thankfully the majority of the 80,000 registered social workers find no difficulty in complying with this. In order to maintain the safety of vulnerable people we take all matters of law breaking by social workers extremely seriously, and will not hesitate to apply the appropriate sanctions.”
Mence waived his right to attend the GSCC hearing.
He was removed from the register with immediate effect.
Social Worker Struck Off After Biting Son
Yorkshire and Humber > South Yorkshire
Article from May 2, 2004
Woman whose sons were placed on protection register should not be in position of responsibility for other children, panel rules.
A children’s social worker was struck off the professional register today after biting her son while under the influence of alcohol. The General Social Care Council (GSCC) said it could not name the individual or reveal the local authority where she worked. It received medical evidence that she suffered from an abnormal personality and longstanding mental health issues.
The case was heard in private by a conduct committee in Birmingham, under rules that guaranteed the social worker’s anonymity. She did not attend. The committee accepted evidence that the woman’s two sons were considered at risk of emotional abuse and placed on the child protection register for 11 weeks in 2003.
The council said “Ms X” had two convictions in 2004 for failing to give blood samples to police after being stopped while driving. She was dismissed by one local authority in May 2005, but did not admit the fact when she applied successfully for a social work job with another authority a few months later.
During 2006, her sons were placed on the child protection register for three months on the grounds that they were at risk of physical harm, and for a further six months on the grounds that they were at risk of emotional harm.
Last year, while drunk, she bit her 16-year-old son on the arm. As a result, her 13-month-old grandchild, who lived with her, was made subject of a child protection plan under the category of “at risk of physical abuse”.
The GSCC decided she should not be allowed to have responsibility for protecting other people’s children when she could not look after her own.
It said: “The committee decided that the behaviour of Ms X was so serious that the only appropriate sanction was removal from the register. The allegation consisted of 26 separate parts, all of a serious nature, which were repeated over a prolonged period and there was a significant risk of repeating behaviour.”
Ms X was removed from the register immediately and can no longer practise social work, but she has a right of appeal to an independent tribunal.
Rosie Varley, chairwoman of the GSCC, said: “All social workers sign up to a code of practice when they register with us and the majority of the 95,000 people on the social care register find no difficulty in complying with this, providing high-quality care to the hundreds of thousands of people who use services.
“It is vital in order to preserve public confidence in those services that we address misconduct and take appropriate action against those who commit it.”
As a regulator, the GSCC’s role is to safeguard public protection. If a social worker’s behaviour, in or outside work, calls into question their judgement, honesty or commitment to helping others we must take action. We do this in order to ensure that only those who are fit, trained and committed to putting the interests of service users first are able to practise as social workers.”
Former Calderdale social services chief on child sex chargesPremium Article !Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.
Options Premium Article !To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.
Subscribe Registered Article !To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.
Sign InRegisterFaces charges: Rod Ryall pictured in 1985
« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryADVERTISEMENTPublished Date: 26 September 2009
By Colin Drury
A FORMER Calderdale Council social services chief has been charged with 13 sex offences allegedly carried out against teenage boys in the 1960s and 70s.
Three of the offences relate to incidents when Dr Rod Ryall is believed to have been a Scout leader at Sowerby Bridge.
The other 13 concern his time as a master at the former Aycliffe Approved School in County Durham before he moved to Calderdale.
Dr Ryall, a 67-year-old Oxford graduate, spent 14 years with Calderdale Council between 1974 to 1988. He lived at Scar Bottom Lane, Greetland.
He was arrested in June.
Yesterday Durham Police said: “A 67- year-old man from Mirfield has been charged with 13 sex offences.”
He will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates Court on October 15.
Exclusive: Secret list of rogue social workers booted for crime, corruption and porn
Jul 19 2009 Russell Findlay, Sunday Mail

A DOZEN rogue social workers who cared for Scotland’s most vulnerable people have been secretly struck off.

A Sunday Mail investigation today reveals a shocking catalogue of criminality, corruption and incompetence in social services.
One worker was struck off for running a stolen car racket and another for possessing child porn.
Catherine Watt was struck off for life after being sacked as manager of Ramsay House children’s home in Clydebank for health and safety, financial and management failings.
She also “obtained a management qualification by deceit” and breached West Dunbartonshire Council’s dignity at work policy.
She was struck off by the Scottish Social Services Council, set up to regulate the profession in 2001. Watt said: “I deny all the allegations. I had 37 years of unblemished service and then this happened.
“My former employers did a very good job on me.”
Also given a life ban was Darren MacDonald, who “placed children at risk of harm” by botching 10 cases in Fife.
Yesterday, married dad-of-three MacDonald, 30, claimed he had been “let down” by his former bosses at Fife Council.
MacDonald, who compiled risk assessments on vulnerable children in Glenrothes, said: “I had been off with stress but they showed me no support.
“They should have helped me instead of disciplining me.
“It was my first job in social work and I was looking at about 30 cases at any one time.
“I accepted there were failings on my part. I was struggling to tie up my cases and my bosses said children were being put at risk.”
Others struck off this year are Karen Taylor, Catherine Forrest and Patricia Higgins, all of Glasgow, and John Donnelly, of North Lanarkshire.
Taylor failed to “adhere to her employers’ absence management procedures and policies”.
Donnelly failed to provide appropriate care for “vulnerable adults to their detriment”.
Student social worker Forrest was banned for “dishonesty and plagiarism” in relation to university course material.
And residential childcare worker Higgins failed to adhere to her “employers’ reporting practices and procedures”.
The most high-profile social workers struck off are Kevin Glancy, 46, and Jackie McIlhargey, 44.
Glancy – who worked with vulnerable children and families in Edinburgh – was jailed last year for having child porn.
Fostering manager McIlhargey was struck off after the Sunday Mail revealed she ran a stolen car factory in Plains near Airdrie.
Four more social workers have been struck off and, in the next month, four others face SSSC disciplinary hearings.
They are Alan Mann, Glasgow, Margaret Gribbon, Clydebank, Derek Horrobin, Moray, and Heather Clark, Aberdeen.
Mann is accused of using “inappropriate and degrading language” to a young client then criticising them for complaining.
Deputy children’s home manager Gribbon was sacked by West Dunbartonshire Council two years ago. She is accused of 12 breaches of SSSC code of practice.
They include failing to be “honest and trustworthy” and failing to comply with health and safety policies “including those relating to substance abuse”.
Horrobin, of Buckie, Banffshire, worked part-time with children and families for Moray Council.
He faces an SSSC rap for breaking the rules by running three licensed premises. In April, his licences were suspended for Bubbles nightclub in Buckie, Republica in Elgin and the Ben Aigen Arms in Mosstodloch.
Grampian Police told councillors Horrobin had “a total disregard for the law” following violence and under-age drinking at Bubbles.
Clark, 51, is accused of failing six vulnerable families and was sacked in March by Aberdeen City Council.
The 12 breaches of the SSSC code of practice she faces include not being “honest and trustworthy”.
She is also accused of failing to “minimise the risks of service users” harming themselves or others. Clark claims she and her colleagues were under such massive pressure they were all behind with records.
She said: “They are making me out to be dishonest. I’ve nothing to hide but with no records I have nothing to back myself up.”
The SSSC began holding disciplinary hearings three years ago. Since then, 19 social workers have been found guilty with 12 being struck off.
Despite rooting out rogues, there are concerns that the SSSC keeps the public in the dark.
They have previously refused to reveal any details about what sacked staff were found guilty of. Only in the past nine months have they begun to release basic details.
But the public information is much less than that given by the English equivalent, the General Social Care Council.
Respected Fife-based social work expert Alyson Leslie has been involved in four serious case reviews in England in the past year.
Alyson, who chairs the General Medical Council’s disciplinary hearings, said: “The Scottish system is behind its English counterpart in terms of the information it makes available publicly about the nature of allegations and the facts found proved or not proved.
“It is perfectly possible to provide this information without compromising client confidentiality.
“Hard-working, hard-pressed, honest professionals don’t want the safety of the public or the reputation of the profession compromised by the small number of individuals who act unprofessionally or deliver poor standards.”
Sssc chief executive Carole Wilkinson said: “Registration of the workforce is good news.
“This gives more protection to those people who use social care services, many of whom are the most vulnerable people in society and deserve the highest standards of care.
“We still have a way to go to get all care workers on the register.”
Social workers ‘drugs claim’
Chris Osuh
JUNE 15, 2009
TWO social workers have been arrested amid claims that one of them tried to sell cocaine to cops at a police party.
The women – who were employed by Manchester council – are alleged to have openly used cocaine in front of officers.
And one of them is said to have offered to sell some of the drug to them.
Now, one of the women, who was employed through an agency, has been sacked. The other has been suspended pending an internal investigation.
The party was held by Greater Manchester Police for people involved in child protection work. Social workers were invited.
It is understood that days later police searched Elizabeth House, a children’s services district office in Openshaw, and another district office in Manchester in front of shocked staff.
It is believed that sincein the aftermath of the arrests, senior management have been overseeing work in both premises.
Pauline Newman, director of children’s services at Manchester council, said: “A member of social work staff has been suspended pending investigation into allegations involving drug misuse during an after-hours staff celebration away from the office.
The allegations are also subject to a police investigation.
“The allegations also involved an agency worker whose contract has now been terminated. We expect the highest standards of behaviour from our staff and our actions reflect that we take these allegations very seriously.”
The women could face further disciplinary action from their profession’s regulatory body, the General Social Care Council.
Greater Manchester Police said:“On Thursday May 28 2009, police in north Manchester arrested two women on suspicion of drugs offences.
“A 27-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of possession and supply of a class A drug.
“A 31-year-old woman was also arrested on suspicion of possession of a class A drug. Both were bailed until Wednesday 29 July 29, pending further inquiries.”

Care Council for Wales finds social worker placed child at riskDaniel Lombard
A social worker who displayed “extremely poor judgement” in her handling of a case in which a child subsequently died has been struck off the register.
A Care Council for Wales conduct committee found Eleni Cordingley had placed Child A at risk by failing to act on two phonecalls from the same person expressing concerns about the family.
Cordingley was a social worker at Swansea Council’s social services department at the time of the case in 2005.
Anonymous phonecalls

The anonymous calls were made to the access and information team between 27 April and 5 May of that year, but Cordingley failed to act appropriately, according to the committee. Child A died later that year.
After admitting misconduct at a hearing in Cardiff, she was told by committee chair Ann Teaney: “By exercising extremely poor judgement you failed to work in a safe and effective way. The misconduct admitted in this case is considered to be so serious that removal from the register is the only appropriate sanction.

“Protection of the public”
“This is necessary for the protection of the public and to uphold the public interest in maintaining confidence in social care services.”
Teaney also expressed concern about Swansea Council’s delay in informing the CCW about the result of a disciplinary hearing involving Cordingley, which concluded in October 2007.
Council’s improvement programme
Swansea Council said in a statement that the child’s death “was a terrible tragedy and [we are] very sorry that it happened”.
It added that a serious case review had found the child was not known to social services prior to the first phonecall. The council said it had acted on the report’s recommendations and worked with the Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales to strengthen its services for vulnerable children.
Wendy Fitzgerald, cabinet member for social services, said the council had already invested £350,000 in recruiting additional social workers this year.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/01/27/110556/conduct-swansea-social-worker-struck-off-for-poor-judgement.htm
GSCC removes Dwight McGuire from registerMcGuire convicted in US for sexual assault on six year old girlKirsty McGregorTuesday 26 January 2010 12:10A children’s social worker who sexually abused a six-year-old girl in the US more than 20 years ago has been struck off the social care register.
Dwight McGuire sexually assaulted the girl and indecently exposed himself to her on several occasions over the course of a year from December 1988 while living with her family.
The girl was so distressed by the experience that she waited almost 20 years before reporting it to the police in 2007, a General Social Care Council conduct committee found. McGuire was working as a children’s social worker at Darlington Council at the time the offence came to light.

McGuire, a US national, pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition in Greene County, Ohio, in April 2009 and was sentenced to one year imprisonment.
The committee decided removal from the register was the only appropriate sanction because sexual abuse of children is “particularly serious, especially so when the registrant is in a position of trust”.
The committee took into account the fact that McGuire, who was not present at the hearing in London, had pleaded guilty to the offence in court, had expressed remorse and had undergone counselling shortly after it happened.

But it concluded that confidence in social care services would be “undermined” if he continued to practise as a social worker.
A spokesperson for Darlington Council said: “Once we were aware of the charges against Mr McGuire, his employment by Darlington Council ceased.
“We also spoke to all of the families he had been working with and none of them raised any issues or concerns.”

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/26/113650/former-darlington-social-worker-struck-off-over-us-child-abuse.htm
Sex offender social worker struck offBy Richard PainApril 27, 2009
A SOCIAL worker who had sex with a mentally ill woman from Camberley has been struck off the social care register.
David Cookson was employed by Surrey County Council as a locum when he slept with the woman known as Ms A after becoming her key worker in 2006.
The 44-year-old from Southampton only admitted having sex with her when she later revealed she was pregnant.
Last year, he was convicted at Guildford Crown Court of having a sexual relationship while in the position of care of a vulnerable adult.
He was placed on the sex offenders’ register for five years and ordered to attend a group work programme.
Now an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) has removed him from the Social Care Register.
The committee said Cookson was aware straight away that his actions breached the social workers’ code of practice but he made no attempt to inform the council of the affair.
Rosie Varley, chairman of the GSCC, said: “Social workers are put in a position of trust and it is therefore vital that they act with integrity while safeguarding vulnerable people.
“Thankfully, the majority of the 80,000 registered social workers find no difficulty in complying with this.
“In order to maintain the safety of vulnerable people we take all matters of law breaking very seriously and will not hesitate to apply the appropriate sanctions.”
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2049682_sex_offender_social_worker_struck_off
Social worker struck off for abusing trans childBy Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk • January 7, 2010 – 13:18

The social worker was struck off
A social worker has been found guilty of shouting homophobic abuse at a child in his care.
Stan Lansdell, 52, was struck off today for “gross abuse” of his position. He worked for Bradford council at the time of the offences.
A General Social Care Conduct Council (GSCC) in London heard he had committed 59 counts of misconduct, including failing to follow child protection procedures, providing false references and making inappropriate contact with an 18-year-old girl.
Communitycare.co.uk reports that Lansdell had shouted homophobic abuse at a trans girl known as Child F in April 2007, when the child was aged between 12 and 13.
The child, who chose to wear girl’s clothing and was said to be experiencing gender confusion, said Lansdell had threatened to put her into care and referred to her as a “f***ing little gay b****d”.
Lansdell also made inappropriate phone calls and text messages of a sexual nature to the child’s 18-year-old cousin.
He did not attend the four-day hearing but said in an email sent to the court that the allegations were fabricated.
He was also found to have failed to keep up-to-date records on at least 13 children.
But the the GSCC’s presenting officer said Lansdell had shown “untrustworthiness” and that his behaviour was “potentially dangerous” to vulnerable children.
Committee chair Barry Picken said the committee believed he had “deep-seated personality and attitudinal problems”.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/07/social-worker-struck-off-for-abusing-trans-child/
Social worker struck off for ‘extremely poor judgement’Jan 26 2009 WalesOnline
A social worker has been struck off the professional register for “extremely poor judgment” in a case involving a baby who was later murdered.
Eleni Cordingley, who has been suspended from the City and County of Swansea social services department, is no longer allowed to work as a social worker after she admitted misconduct at a Care Council for Wales (CCW) Conduct Committee Hearing in Cardiff.
Mrs Cordingley admitted she had shown poor professional judgment and had failed to comply with child protection procedures concerning Aaron Gilbert during the hearing last Thursday and Friday.
The 13-month-old boy was murdered after a month-long regime of violence in May 2005.
Andrew Lloyd admitted killing the defenceless child on the eve of a murder trial at Swansea Crown Court in October 2006.
He was later jailed for life with the recommendation he serve a minimum 24 year term.
The baby’s mother Rebecca Lewis, of Swansea, south Wales, was jailed for six years after being found guilty of familial homicide at the end of the four week trial.
Lewis had failed to lift a finger to prevent Aaron’s murder, by her live-in boyfriend Lloyd, despite knowing what was happening.
The jury heard that Aaron’s body carried a “constellation of 50 injuries,” caused by Lloyd over four weeks.
He had undergone beatings, had been thrown across a room by his ears, had been bitten and slapped and forced to inhale smoke.
The Committee in Cardiff was told that the Access and Information team in the Social Services Department of the City and County of Swansea had received two anonymous calls from the same person expressing concerns about the family of Aaron, who was referred to as Child A throughout the hearing.
Anne Teaney, the committee chairwoman, told Mrs Cordingley: “In failing to act appropriately in response to the complaints between April 27 and May 5 2005, you are guilty of misconduct by putting Child A at risk.
“By exercising extremely poor judgment you failed to work in a safe and effective way. The misconduct admitted in this case is considered to be so serious that removal from the Register is the only appropriate sanction.
“This is necessary for the protection of the public and to uphold the public interest in maintaining confidence in social care services.”
During the hearing, the Committee also expressed concern about the delay in the City and County of Swansea informing the Care Council for Wales about the result of a disciplinary hearing for Mrs Cordingley which was concluded in October 2007.
A spokesman for Swansea Council said: “The death of Aaron Gilbert in 2005 was a terrible tragedy and Swansea Council is very sorry that it happened.
“Following the Care Council’s decision we have taken immediate steps to suspend the social worker.
“We will also need to consider what further action may be necessary in the light of the evidence and outcome of the Care Council hearing.
“Following Aaron’s death the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board undertook a Serious Case Review. It found that prior to the first anonymous phone call, Aaron was not known to Social Services. He was not on the at risk register.
“However, it concluded that all the agencies involved with the family had important lessons to learn and made recommendations on how these should be implemented.”
Wendy Fitzgerald, Cabinet Member for Social Services at the council, said: “Our primary concern is protecting and promoting the welfare of children.
“Since Aaron’s tragic death we have introduced a number of improvements to services
“This year alone, we have invested more than £350,000 to recruit additional social workers. We have improved services and will continue to work with the Care and Social Services Inspectorate to bring further improvements.
“We will be looking at the evidence and outcome of the CCW hearing and considering what further actions are necessary.”
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/01/26/social-worker-struck-off-for-extremely-poor-judgement-91466-22784629/
Social worker struck off after buying whisky for rehab patientA social worker, Craig McLoughlin, who offered to buy a double whisky in a pub for a client he had helped through detox has been struck off. Published: 1:04PM GMT 06 Nov 2009Mr McLoughlin, who was drunk at the time, told the client, known only as Mr A, not to worry about his dead father, adding ”I’ll be your dad”, and he informed other people in the pub that he was his social worker.The committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) in London ruled today that the 54-year-old’s actions amounted to misconduct and ordered that he be removed from the professional register.
NHS staff told not to hold meetings where alcohol served in order not to offend MuslimsIt heard on Thursday that Mr A had issues with psychosis linked to substance and alcohol misuse and McLoughlin, from Sheffield, helped arrange his attendance at a detox programme.McLoughlin was on a day off in May 2005 and was intoxicated ”to the level of being drunk” in a city centre pub when Mr A and his girlfriend bumped into him, the hearing was told.Mr Swan said: ”Mr A and his girlfriend. Miss C. went into the pub for a meal and the registrant invited them to join him at a table where he was sitting by himself, and they did.”The registrant then offered to buy an alcoholic drink for Mr A, namely whisky, and produced a quantity of money from his pocket.”He went on to express his view to Mr A that nobody could be without alcohol and that was despite the fact that Mr A had recently undergone detox. Mr A refused the offer of a drink.”Mr Swan said Mr A’s father had died when he was only 13, which he and McLoughlin had discussed.”The registrant said to Mr A in a raised voice, ‘Don’t worry about your dad, I’ll be your dad.”’The registrant went on to shout to other customers, ‘I’m his social worker, this is our social work session’.”Mr A telephoned his grandmother to tell her what was going on and she reported it to his bosses.But the committee did not find proved allegations that McLoughlin offered Mr A some magic mushrooms, or asked Mr A to provide him with cannabis or sleeping tabletsMcLoughlin was employed by the city council to work for the Sheffield Care Trust in mental health services from September 13 2004 and he worked in the north sector community health team.He was involved in the case of Mr A from October 2004, said Andrew Swan, representing the GSCC.McLoughlin was employed on a temporary basis and had a contract which was due to run until October 28 2005.During the investigation into the incident, McLoughlin accepted he had been very intoxicated and had consumed about one-and-a-half bottles of wine and a few pints and accepted he may have made some inappropriate comments.He resigned on the day of a disciplinary hearing in September 2005, a month before his contract expired.Mr Swan read out a statement from Mr A in which he said McLoughlin helped him set up the detox and was ”very encouraging”.He said McLoughlin was ”hammered” in the pub that day and the incident ”let me down big time”.Mr A said: ”It was like he did the job so he could get paid at the end of the week.”Elizabeth Johnson, an area manager for Sheffield Care Trust who led the investigation, read from a statement in which she concluded: ”He was a genuinely nice and committed chap, but with an alcohol problem. The outcome for Mr A was devastating. He was lucky he had his grandmother for support.”The committee said it was of the view that the evidence of Mr A and his partner was ”reliable” about the offer to buy an alcoholic drink.It said: ”The committee found, as a fact, that the registrant had been very drunk at the time of the incident and was satisfied, to the required standard, that the witnesses were being truthful when they said that the registrant had offered to buy Mr A a double whisky.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6515763/Social-worker-struck-off-after-buying-whisky-for-rehab-patient.html
Newcastle social worker struck off after filming up shopper20/11/2009

A social worker from Newcastle who modified his tennis bag so he could film up unsuspecting women’s skirts was today removed from the profession by the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
Michael Bird, 55 and formerly of Newcastle, adapted a bag for tennis racquets to conceal a digital camera which he then placed under adult female’s skirts in Tesco, Sainsbury’s, River Island and Fenwick Department store in Newcastle’s city centre on the 24 and 25 June 2008. Some of the images were then edited and downloaded onto his home computer and each lasted several minutes.
He received a caution for voyeurism in February of this year after admitting to the offence. He was working for North Tyneside Council at the time of the offence and was dismissed by them in August 2008 following disciplinary proceedings.
Bird did not attend the one-day hearing held in London but in written representations to the GSCC’s conduct committee he admitted the facts. When interviewed by his former employer, he said he had been showing his son how to use a video recorder for a school project. He also said his friend had discussed a voyeuristic website and they were curious as to whether the footage was staged or obtained without the victim’s consent. He later admitted to the police that he did the filming for his own personal sexual gratification. In mitigation at the employer disciplinary hearing he cited deep-seated problems. In mitigation given to the GSCC’s Committee he cited that his curiosity was heightened as he was prevented from testing boundaries as a child due to his strict upbringing as Jehovah Witness.
The Committee said Bird’s behaviour was a ‘violation of the privacy of these four women who doubtless would have been horrified to learn that they had been filmed in such a way’. They noted that a certain amount of planning and sophistication was required to place a camera in a bag in such a way that it could film up skirts and remain hidden. The filming took place on four separate occasions and over two days and demonstrated a pattern of behaviour rather than a one-off. The Committee found that the behaviour amounted to a very clear breach of the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers which all social workers sign up to when registering.  They described his actions as both ‘degrading and humiliating.’
In deciding to remove him from the register, the Committee noted his lack of insight which they found surprising given that he had previously been seconded to a joint Police/Social Service Department investigation into historic sexual abuse. In this role he set up a support group for survivors of sexual abuse.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said: “If social workers behave in a way, in or outside of work, which calls into question their suitability to be a social worker we must take action in the interests of public protection.
The majority of social workers on our register act with honesty and integrity at all times to deliver high quality care, and in doing so, act as excellent ambassadors for the profession. Those who behave in a way which jeopardises the public trust and confidence in social work that others have worked so hard to build up must be held to account.”
http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/michael+bird.htm
Convicted social worker removed from register25/09/2009

A social worker convicted of obtaining property by deception and dishonestly making a false representation for gain has been struck off the Social Care Register by the General Social Care Council (GSCC) for misconduct.
Ms Julie Andrews, age 45, worked as a social worker at the time of her conviction.  The GSCC committee heard details of Ms Andrews’ offences, which included the submission of false financial information to her local authority, in order to maintain the pretence that funds were being used to pay for carers when they were not.  The fraud was committed over a period of two and half years and amounted to over £25,000.
Ms Andrews who was present during the conduct hearing admitted that her convictions amounted to misconduct.  However, she offered mitigating reasons for her actions, some of which the committee agreed to hear in private.  In the public hearing, Ms Andrews pointed to the fact that the dishonesty was unrelated to her work, that she did not target vulnerable individuals, that she had an exemplary record prior to her conviction and she offered to pay the money back.
After consideration of the allegations and Ms Andrews’s rationale for her actions, the committee decided to impose a removal order. They felt that “the high value, the high frequency and the planned nature of the dishonesty”, aggravated the nature of her misconduct.  The committee also considered the protection of the public and the need to maintain confidence in social care workers as factors in reaching their decision.
GSCC Chair, Rosie Varley said “The majority of social workers are scrupulously honest and trustworthy professionals.  The GSCC mandate includes promoting and maintaining high standards amongst social workers.  We will take action against any social worker who does not meet the standards as laid down in the code of practice even if their action does not directly affect service users.”
The sanction has immediate effect and means that the registrant will not be able to practise as a social worker.
http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Convicted+social+worker+removed+from+register.htm
Kent social worker removed from Social Care Register18/09/2009

An independent Committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) yesterday struck off a social worker from Kent after hearing allegations of sexual abuse dating back to the 1980s.
Douglas Makey, aged 49 and from Tonbridge, worked as a Residential Social Worker in a children’s home in Gravesend during the 1980s when the alleged sexual abuse occurred. He was found by the committee to have abused Ms A, when she was around 9 to 10 years old and Ms B, when she was around 10 to 12 years old.  Ms A and Ms B lived at the home during the eighties although not at the same time. Ms A gave evidence to the committee who described her as a convincing and honest witness leaving them ‘in little doubt that what she was saying was true’.
Ms B did not attend the hearing but the committee considered evidence including the statement she gave to the police and letters she wrote at the time.
Mr Makey was not present at the hearing and chose not to be represented.  The allegations, which Makey denied, were investigated by the police in 2006.  The Crown Prosecution Service did not prosecute due to insufficient evidence.
In coming to their decision to remove Makey from the register, the committee said these were ‘very serious findings of sexual abuse of two vulnerable children in a residential care home.’ They described it as ‘abuse carried out for his sexual gratification and at night time.’ The women were described by the committee as young children who were particularly vulnerable and ‘trusted Makey implicitly.’ They said Makey had groomed one of the women with treats and affection and had taken advantage of the other woman’s ‘obvious affection for him’. Mr Makey’s behaviour was of a most serious nature repeated over a prolonged period and against targeted, vulnerable young children in care.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said “People who use services must be able to trust their social worker and have every right to expect them to be of good character, acting in their client’s best interests at all times. The vast majority of social workers are committed to this and the high standards set out in the GSCC’s code of practice. As the regulator of social workers, we will not hesitate to take action against the minority who abuse their position of responsibility and the trust placed in them.”

http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Douglas+Makey+release.htm
Social worker struck off register following theft conviction28/10/2009

A social worker who stole over £50,000 in cash from a charity she worked for has been removed from the profession by an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
Mrs Lynne Greenwood, 57, worked as a Service Director in the Manchester office of Creative Support Limited, a charity which provides social care services for people with learning disabilities and other mental health issues. She was convicted at Manchester Crown Court in November 2008 of two counts of theft after being found guilty of stealing £52,742.35 in cash from the charity over a period of 18-20 months. Greenwood was given an 11 months suspended prison term over two years on condition that the money was returned to Creative Support Limited, which she has since done.
Greenwood, who was not present at the GSCC’s hearing, admitted in a letter to the committee that her convictions amounted to misconduct. In mitigation, she said that no service user was directly harmed by her actions and her actions did not reflect negatively on social workers as she was not employed as a social worker at the time.  She added that she was compulsive spender but was receiving help to address these issues.
In finding Greenwood guilty of professional misconduct, the committee said her actions constituted a serious breach of the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers. They noted that Greenwood occupied a senior position within the charity and had deprived service users of valuable funds.
In removing her from the register, they cited sections of the code relating to maintaining the trust of service users and upholding confidence in social care services. They said allowing Greenwood to remain on the register after admitting such grave offences of dishonesty would be “wholly inappropriate and disproportionate”. By saying in her letter to the committee that money was not taken directly from service users, Greenwood “failed to demonstrate insight into the seriousness and impact of her actions.”
GSCC Chair, Rosie Varley, said “The vast majority of registered social workers are upright and honest professionals who abide by the law and the GSCC code of practice.  People who use services need to have confidence in social workers. The GSCC must take action against registrants who fail to meet the high standards expected of them in the interest of public protection.”
http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Greenwood+release.htm
Social worker struck off after stealing money from service user08/04/2009

A woman convicted of stealing money from a vulnerable service user has been removed from the Social Care Register by an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
Martha Wright, 33 and from Manchester, was employed as a social worker for Trafford Council in their health and disability team when the allegations came to light. Over a period of nine months, Wright stole a total sum of £4,747 from Ms A, an adult user of services who had a mental incapacity. Wright was convicted in Manchester Crown Court on 22 November 2007 of nine counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception and was given a suspended sentence and 240 hours community service.
The GSCC Committee said Wright had significantly abused her position of trust and had caused direct harm to a particularly vulnerable service user who was left with virtually nothing in her bank account.
They said Wright’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be a registered social worker, and that dishonesty associated with professional practice is so damaging to a person’s suitability to be a social worker and to public confidence in social care services that removal was the only appropriate sanction. She had breached the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers that all social workers sign up to when registering with the GSCC.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said: “In order to maintain public confidence in social workers, they are expected to act with integrity, abiding by the law and the GSCC code of practice. It is of the up most importance that vulnerable people are protected, and we therefore take matters of law breaking by social workers extremely seriously. Thankfully the majority of the 80,000 registered social workers find no difficulty in complying with this, but we will not hesitate to apply the appropriate sanctions if needs be.”
Wright was removed from the register with immediate effect. She has the right of appeal to the independent First-tier Tribunal (Care Standards).
http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release_08-04-09.htm
Social worker struck off register following misconduct05/10/2009

A 65-year-old social worker has been removed from the Social Care Register by an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) for misconduct.
During the four-day hearing, the committee heard allegations that Rosalind Shaw, who worked for the London Borough of Waltham Forest’s Intermediate Care Assessment Team (ICAT) based at Whipps Cross hospital, failed to meet standards of practice required as a social worker.  The allegations included: failure to assess users of services in accordance with employer requirements; failure to report an allegation of abuse by a carer through the proper procedure; an inability to handle confidential patient information safely; and acting without management consultation.
Shaw did not attend the hearing at which the committee heard from several witnesses including Ms Shaw’s ICAT manager, who attested to her inability to adhere to correct procedures as set out in the code of practice for social workers, as well as to follow management instructions.
The committee concluded that in view of the persistent and serious nature of Rosalind Shaw’s behaviour and in order to protect the public, she should be removed from the Register.  In reaching their decision, the committee highlighted the fact that Rosalind Shaw had “consistently failed to follow national standards and local procedures”.  Her behaviour had an adverse impact on the performance and effectiveness of colleagues and staff in other agencies as well as failing to safeguard people who use services.
The GSCC’s Chair, Rosie Varley, said: “When social workers register with the General Social Care Council, they agree to abide by a code of practice. The vast majority of social workers practice in accordance with the code, but where someone has failed to maintain standards of practice, the GSCC will take action to ensure standards are upheld and public confidence is maintained”
The sanction has immediate effect and means that the registrant will not be able to practise as a social worker.
http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Rosalind+Shaw+conduct+hearing.htm
Social worker struck off after conning teenage girls into posing topless04/08/2009

A man from West Yorkshire has been removed from the register of social workers by the General Social Care Council (GSCC) after encouraging vulnerable teenagers known to his youth offending team to pose naked.
Christopher Hardman, 55, from Batley, West Yorkshire, was employed by Kirklees Metropolitan Council as a team leader in their Youth Offending Team when he sent text messages and letters to a number of young women attached to the service.
Acting as ‘Sue’, ‘Ayesha’, ‘Jane Attwood’ and ‘Peter’ from ‘Vamp model agency’ he asked the girls, some as young as 16, to attend lingerie, topless and nude photo shoots in exchange for money.
Claiming to be from ‘Image Creations’, he also targeted another woman, aged over 18, who was the daughter of one of his work colleagues. She and four of the service users attended photographic sessions arranged by Hardman, who was acting under an alias. In February 2006, police searched his house after these allegations were made and he was found to be in possession of cannabis for which he accepted a formal caution.
Hardman admitted a statement of the facts which the committee found supported the allegation and admitted that his actions amounted to misconduct. He did not attend the hearing, held today (Tuesday) in central London.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said: “Social work relies on the existence of a wholly professional relationship, in circumstances in which users of services have little choice but to be trusting. The vast majority of social workers, and there are almost 80,000 on our register, have no difficulty with this because they are absolutely committed to working in the best interest of the service user at all times.
People who need social care services have the right to be protected from social workers who seriously abuse the trust placed in them, for the purpose of sexual gratification or for any other purpose. A social worker who abuses this trust should forfeit the privileges which come with registration and be removed from the workforce.”
Hardman, who resigned from Kirklees in 2007 and has not worked as a social worker since, was removed from the register with immediate effect and will not be able to practise as a social worker. He has the right of appeal to the independent First-tier Tribunal (Care Standards)
http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news_release_04-08-09.htm
Social worker struck off after daughter is seriously injured19/11/2009

A social worker who failed to seek immediate medical attention for her toddler and lied to doctors about how her injuries occurred has been removed from the profession by the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons and was referred to as Ms C during the two-day hearing, was also found to have had a heroin addiction which she did not disclose to her employer.
On 7 March 2008, Ms C’s 13-month-old daughter was admitted to hospital with what doctors described as ‘life threatening injuries’ which were caused by the child’s father. The medical evidence showed she had a perforated intestine, which led to peritonitis which was consistent with blows to her abdomen. She also had serious bruising to her back and the doctors found an older fracture to a bone in her skull. The father has since been convicted of grievous bodily harm and was jailed for two years.
The Committee, which met over two days in London, heard that Ms C did not seek immediate medical attention for the child when she discovered she was unwell. Ms C, who did not attend the hearing or provide mitigation, later failed to provide a truthful account to the doctors of how her daughter’s injuries occurred, thereby jeopardising her health, and gave untrue evidence to an unnamed County Court in order to protect the child’s father.
They also heard evidence from a representative of Ms C’s employer who conducted an investigation after discovering her use of heroin and methadone. The local authority, which also cannot be named, found she failed to disclose her addiction on their pre-employment health questionnaire and during the term of her employment there, between January 2006 and 3 December 2007. She worked in adult services.
In removing Ms C from the register and barring her from practice, the committee found that she lied to protect her partner at the expense of her daughter’s wellbeing and health. They noted that a delayed diagnosis potentially threatened the child’s life. She showed a persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her actions and continuing and profound dishonesty. Her actions demonstrated  a clear departure from the standards set out in the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers which all social workers sign up to.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said: “People who use services need to have confidence that social workers are committed to ensuring their welfare and safety and that of others. The majority of the 93,000 social workers on our register do not think twice about doing this.
Social worker struck off register for offering whisky to ‘recovering alcoholic’09/11/2009

A social worker who offered whisky to a client he helped through detox has been removed from the Social Care Register by an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
Craig McLoughlin, 54, who was employed by Sheffield City Council was found to have offered to buy Mr A, a user of services, an alcoholic drink despite knowing that he had been through detox for alcohol dependency. McLoughlin was drunk at the time and said to Mr A, whose father had passed away, words to the effect of “don’t worry about your Dad; I’ll be your Dad” and then went on to disclose to other people in the pub that he was Mr A’s social worker.
McLoughlin, who was not present at the two-day hearing, had previously admitted in a witness statement dated 16 August 2005 that he had “abused his position as a social care worker” and “made some inappropriate comments”. He also accepted that he had a “drinking problem”.
In finding McLoughlin guilty of professional misconduct, the committee said there had been a “serious departure” from the standards set out in the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers which all social workers sign up to as a condition of registration. They cited sections of the code relating to maintaining the trust of people who use services and upholding confidence in social care services.
The committee was of the view that McLoughlin’s problem with alcohol meant that he would continue to pose a risk to people who use services until he had addressed the problem. There was no evidence before the committee to show that he had sought professional help and that he no longer had an alcohol problem.
The committee was particularly influenced by the fact that McLoughlin had disclosed confidential information and had behaved in a manner that would have caused considerable harm to Mr A had he not been strong willed.
However, they did take into account the mitigating factors set out in McLoughlin’s witness statement as well as his previous good record.
Rosie Varley, Chair of the GSCC, said: “Social workers have a duty to act in the interest of service users at all times and should avoid any situations that may be harmful to the service user. The GSCC exists to ensure public protection and to promote high standards among social workers and will take action against those who do not abide by the Code of Practice. The vast majority of social workers comply with our codes and work hard to support vulnerable people on a daily basis.”
Mr McLoughlin was removed from the register with immediate effect. He has the right of appeal to the Health, Education and Social Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.
http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/McLoughlin+Press+Release.htm
Waltham Forest social worker removed from the register

18/02/2008

A social worker who worked for Waltham Forest Borough Council has been removed from the Social Care Register at a hearing held by the General Social Care Council (GSCC), after being found guilty of professional misconduct.
At the four day hearing in London, Tricia Forbes admitted failing to initiate a child protection inquiry after a 13 year old girl said she had been physically abused by her father. Forbes, who at the time was a deputy team manager, failed to arrange for the child and her siblings to be accommodated overnight in a place of safety and did not inform the police, child protection response unit and partner agencies of the disclosure.
The hearing was also told that the social worker dropped the child off at the side of the road without conducting a risk assessment and failed to accompany another member of staff to meet the girl’s parents, despite being directed to do so by her manager. At a meeting convened after the child was admitted to hospital, which Forbes chaired, she did not inform colleagues of her involvement in the case. The Committee felt in doing so, the registrant had put her own interests above that of the child and this was ‘inexcusable’.
The Committee concluded that the actions taken by Forbes had put the child at serious risk. In coming to their decision, the Committee noted that the social worker had provided contradictory accounts of her involvement in the case and was not satisfied that she had demonstrated a consistent insight into her failings. At times, they said, she had demonstrated a defensive attitude and was seeking to shift responsibility onto others when giving evidence at the hearing. Forbes was also found to have not recorded her actions in the child’s file, breaching a fundamental principle of social work practice.
Sir Rodney Brooke, Chair of the GSCC, said: “Fortunately, professional negligence in social work is very rare and the tens of thousands of social workers registered with us provide only the highest standards of care to vulnerable members of our society.
In order to protect the reputation of the very many social workers who do an outstanding job day in day out, it’s vital that we take action where misconduct has been found. By addressing poor practice where we find it, we hope to be able to preserve trust in the profession and ensure public confidence.”
Removal from the register means that the registrant will not be able to practice as a social worker. Registrants have a right of appeal to the independent Care Standards Tribunal
http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Waltham+Forest+social+worker+removed+from+the+register.htm
Social worker struck off after failing to protect 13-month-old toddler who was beaten to deathBy DAILY MAIL REPORTERLast updated at 11:27 AM on 27th January 2009Comments (17)Add to My Stories
Killed: Aaron Gilbert died from brain damage after he was attacked by Andrew Lloyd in 2006. His social worker Eleni Cordingley was struck off after failing to protect himA social worker has been struck off over the brutal murder of a toddler whose injuries left him looking ‘like the Elephant Man’.Social services official Eleni Cordingley was banned from working after failing to protect 13-month-old Aaron Gilbert from his mother’s brutal boyfriend.Mrs Cordingley failed to follow proper child protection procedures which could have saved little Aaron from his savage beatings.A conduct hearing was told Aaron died from brain damage after he was attacked by his mother’s boyfriend Andrew Lloyd.One neighbour later told police that Aaron was so deformed by his injuries before his death that he ‘looked like the Elephant Man’.In 2006 Lloyd was jailed for a minimum of 24 years for the baby’s murder and mother Rebecca Lewis became the first British woman to be convicted of allowing her child to be murdered by a violent partner.She was jailed for six years for familial homicide by failing to protect her child.Social services in Swansea, South Wales, had two anonymous calls from the same ‘whistle blower’ with fears about Aaron’s safety.  But Cordingley failed to respond properly to protect Aaron – when alarm bells should have rung.A conduct hearing told Cordingley: ‘By exercising extremely poor judgement you failed to work in a safe and effective way.’The misconduct admitted in this case is considered to be so serious that removal from the register is the only appropriate sanction.  ‘This is necessary for the protection of the public and to uphold the public interest in maintaining confidence in social care services.’

Jailed: Rebecca Lewis, pictured with Aaron, became the first woman in Britain to be jailed for allowing her child to be murdered by Lloyd, rightAaron was beaten to death by Lloyd, 23, after social workers, police and health service staff missed repeated chances to prevent the tragedy.Lewis, 21, regularly watched Lloyd beat the little boy – causing more than 50 injuries.   She once saw him pick up Aaron by his ears and throw him across the room.Bullying Lloyd would swear at the boy and blow smoke into his face. He once promised ‘to smash your little head in’.Lloyd would flick the baby’s ears and feet, making him scream in pain, and Aaron would ‘shiver in fright’ at the sight of him. Lewis also said she saw Lloyd swing the child around violently by the ankles.Sharon Hurlow, 53, rang Swansea social services twice in a week when she noticed  13-month-old Aaron had alarming bruises on his body.She said: ‘I feel like we’ve finally won. I tried to warn social services, but nothing happened.’Little Aaron would be running around now, off to school, if people had listened to me.’Instead, he’s in a small dark grave all alone – his little body black and blue.’You think that if you see a child being hurt and have the guts to report it, then something will be done.’Aaron’s father Gareth Gilbert said: ‘I am pleased to hear about this. I agree with every word of the judgment.  ‘Nothing will ever replace Aaron. But I think this person involved should make an apology to me personally.’Mrs Cordingely was removed from the social worker register at the hearing by the Care Council for Wales Conduct Committee Hearing in Cardiff.A Swansea council spokesman said: ‘The death of Aaron Gilbert in 2005 was a terrible tragedy and Swansea council is very sorry that it happened.  ‘Following the care council’s decision we have taken immediate steps to suspend the social worker.’We will also need to consider what further action may be necessary in the light of the evidence and outcome of the care council hearing.’It found that prior to the first anonymous phone call, Aaron was not known to social services. He was not on the at-risk register.’However, it concluded that all the agencies involved with the family had important lessons to learn and made recommendations on how these should be implemented.’The council said more than £350,000 has been spent in the last year to recruit extra social workers.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1129084/Social-worker-struck-failing-protect-13-month-old-toddler-beaten-death.html#ixzz0euVIzqOF
Paedophile social worker is struck off8:56am Saturday 23rd January 2010

By Jim Entwistle »
A MAN responsible for the welfare of vulnerable North-East children has been struck off as a social worker for sexually assaulting a six-year-old girl.
Convicted paedophile Dwight McGuire worked in Darlington for four years, although his offence was committed some years before he moved to the town.
Yesterday, more details of his crimes came to light at a hearing of the General Social Care Council, in London.
It emerged that the 41-yearold American, who moved to Darlington after he secured a job as a social worker with Darlington Borough Council, had exposed himself to his victim numerous times, before indecently touching her while masturbating.
McGuire was sentenced to a year in jail in May last year after he admitted gross sexual imposition, although a search of the US sex offenders’ register revealed he is now a free man. He is listed as living in a village in Montana.
He was detained by officials at an airport in Minnesota in January last year, after his victim, who is now an adult, told police of her ordeal. The incidents happened in 1988 and 1989 while McGuire was a student. Yesterday’s committee heard that after she told police, the girl phoned McGuire in Darlington to obtain an admission from him.
With police listening in, McGuire confessed.
He was arrested shortly after when he returned to the US to visit his dying father.
Committee chairwoman Jeanette Cragg said: “This was a serious departure from the code of conduct, and confidence in social services would be undermined if he was allowed to continue as a social worker.”
Mrs Cragg said McGuire’s conduct was aggravated by a breach of trust, because the incidents were over a prolonged period and because in 2007, when the girl told the police about it, she was still deeply affected.
An investigation found no evidence that McGuire had committed any offence while working in Darlington.
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4867783.Paedophile_social_worker_is_struck_off/
Social worker struck off for inactionJoy Coles, 55, from Leicester ‘was dishonest’ and did not allocate cases to be investigated
John Carvel, social affairs editorguardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 April 2009 17.02 BSTArticle historyA senior social worker has been struck off the professional register for putting children at risk by failing to allocate 90 cases for investigation.
The General Social Care Council (GSCC) said Joy Coles, 55, a team manager in the duty and assessment service at Leicester council’s children’s department, knowingly misled her managers about the number of unallocated cases, and backdated closing dates of other cases to cover her tracks.
In one instance, she took no action into allegations of physical abuse towards children in a family. The children were eventually put on the child protection register, but the committee said the delay could have put the children at risk of harm.
The GSCC said Coles also failed to allocate other child protection cases that should have been dealt with urgently. Her behaviour “called into question her suitability to remain on the register and also harmed the reputation and standing of the social care profession.”
Coles was a team manager in Leicester for four years to November 2005.
The GSCC added: “By her persistent inaction and failures she placed children at risk of harm. She failed to safeguard vulnerable children. She was a team manager responsible for allocating cases and fundamentally failed in this regard.”
Coles breached the code of practice for social care workers because “she put service users at risk, was dishonest, failed to communicate with managers about these issues, and was unreliable and lacked dependability.”
Rosie Varley, chair of the GSCC, said: “All social workers sign up to a code of practice when they register with us and the majority of the 95,000 people on the social care register find no difficulty with being honest and upholding public confidence in the profession. It is vital that social workers do all they can to protect vulnerable people. Any concerns raised about a child’s welfare should be taken seriously by a social worker, and we will take the appropriate action if we think children have been let down and put at further risk.”
Coles has a right of appeal to an independent tribunal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/09/social-worker-struck-off
Barneley social worker struck off for suggestive comments
Published Date: 19 January 2010A FORMER senior social worker from Barnsley was struck off the professional register for misconduct today.Douglas Adams was assistant director of children’s services at Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council when he made a series of comments to four female colleagues, some of which were of a sexual nature, the General Social Care Council heard.
He was
dismissed from his post in 2006 following a disciplinary investigation into a complaint made by one of the women, a pregnant administrative worker who said Adams suggested she should have an abortion.
The 56-year-old from Nottingham did not attend the two-day hearing in central London.
Allegations that Adams had a conversation with the pregnant woman, known as Ms D, during which he told her “it would be easy to have an abortion because her pregnancy was not that far gone” were found proved, along with other comments including suggesting she would end up with no job and would lose her figure.
In its decision, the conduct panel stated: “Although Ms D’s evidence was hearsay, when he was interviewed by Ms (Deborah) Lightfoot on June 8 2006 the registrant did not deny the specific allegations which now form the basis of the formal allegation for the present proceedings.
“Further, he did not deny the specific allegations during the course of his disciplinary hearing on August 2 2006.
“The committee was impressed by the fact that Ms D herself did not appear to be motivated by malice or personal gain and did not wish the registrant to get into trouble.”
Adams, who lost an appeal against his dismissal by Barnsley council, suggested during inquiries into Ms D’s complaint that he had been trying to “shock” her into acknowledging the difficulties she could face as a young mother, the hearing was told.
The evidence of another woman, Ms A, that Adams told her he could imagine her in a “Miss Whiplash” outfit was also found proved.
Adams was meanwhile found to have told Ms A that an administrative worker – Ms B – was “completely off her head” and “all over the place” because she was undergoing fertility treatment.
According to the GSCC, Adams whispered an obscene comment into the ear of another female colleague – Ms C – during an office Christmas meal.
Suspending Adams from the GSCC register would not have been a sufficient sanction, according to the conduct committee.
In its decision it said “the right of potential colleagues to protection from abuse was more important than the registrant’s own fortunes” and said Adams had shown “little insight into his repeated failings”.
“The committee took into account evidence of the registrant’s previous good character and some evidence of the registrant’s apologies to Ms A,” the decision stated.
“The committee also took into account the registrant’s acknowledgement that his conversation with Ms D had been highly inappropriate.
“However, the committee was not satisfied that the registrant’s proven behaviour was unlikely to be repeated.”
The panel, chaired by Barry Picken, concluded: “The committee found that the registrant’s behaviour demonstrated a blatant disregard for the values of social care standards set out in the code of practice for social care workers and that a removal order was the only proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case.”

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Barneley-social-worker-struck-off.5995217.jp
Social worker struck off for deception over houseBY CALUM ROSS
Published: 26/01/2010
A NORTH-EAST social worker has been struck off after claiming his son was a heroin user in order to have him moved into a house earmarked for ex-offenders.
Scottish social work regulators ruled that Edward Evans “seriously abused his position” in Aberdeen as a senior member of community safety charity Sacro.
It follows a disciplinary hearing which heard he had assigned his son a temporary home in the city despite not meeting the criteria.
Mr Evans, of Piper Place, Portlethen, moved his son to the front of Sacro’s waiting list by claiming he was embroiled in a “personal crisis” and was “frequently smoking heroin”. He went on to try to secure the property permanently for his son, attempting to hide his actions from colleagues in the process.
A Scottish Social Services Council disciplinary panel found he had committed misconduct by engaging “in a course of deception over a lengthy period” in securing an advantage for his son to which he was not entitled.
It said: “The registrant occupied a senior position of trust but seriously abused that position and the trust placed in him.”
Mr Evans refused to comment when asked about the findings by the Press and Journal.
The name and the address of the son in question are not known.
Mr Evans had been employed as a team leader at Sacro’s supported accommodation service in Aberdeen since November, 2006.
He was suspended by Sacro in October, 2008, pending an investigation into the claims and resigned five weeks later before the disciplinary proceedings had concluded.
robust
A spokesman for Sacro, which runs 25 tenancies for former offenders in the city, said: “Sacro follows robust disciplinary policies and procedures and places a high priority on the conduct of its staff.
“These policies and procedures are in place to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its staff, service users and the public.
“In the case referred to, Sacro immediately notified the Scottish Social Services Council of the suspension of an employee and have at all times assisted the council fully with their investigation of this case.”
The tenancy allocated by Mr Evans was provided by Aberdeen City Council, which contracts Sacro to help former offenders resettle in the community.
A spokesman for the local authority said: “Aberdeen City Council supports the work of the Scottish Social Services Council and the prompt action taken by Sacro.”
The social services council’s chief executive, Anna Fowlie, said: “It is essential that social workers act with integrity and honesty at all times.
“Mr Evans failed to follow procedures which are designed to promote and safeguard the wellbeing and safety of people who use services.”
Birmingham social worker struck off after failing to declare convictionJan 20 2010

An experienced social worker from Birmingham has been struck off after she failed to declare she had been convicted of theft.
The General Social Care Council (GSCC) also accepted an allegation that Verona Reeves threatened her landlords and the couple’s children.
A GSCC conduct committee said Reeves’ behaviour amounted to misconduct and said “such a grave case” necessitated her removal from the professional register.
The 48-year-old from Birmingham was convicted on December 18, 2006, at Dudley Magistrates’ Court of one count of theft of a credit card, two counts of theft from cash machines and four counts of obtaining property by deception. A further 22 offences were taken into consideration, the GSCC heard.
The committee found Reeves failed to inform the GSCC of her criminal record when she applied for registration with the regulator.
She also continued to work for Birmingham City Council until May 2008 despite having her registration suspended for six months in March 2008. Reeves’s dishonesty was “deliberate, systematic and prolonged” the committee concluded.
The allegation that she told her landlords words to the effect of “I know where you live and I know where your kids go to school and they better watch out” in June 2006 was also considered misconduct as the committee said it was “such seriously inappropriate behaviour for a member of the social work profession”.
Neil Grant, presenting the case for the GSCC, said Reeves was a senior and experienced practitioner, particularly in the area of mental health, who had obtained a diploma in social work in 1989.
Between 1989 and 2003 she worked as a social worker in Birmingham and London, latterly at Enfield Council, but left to become a full-time mother in August 2003.
Mr Grant said, while it was not clear precisely when Reeves returned to work, by May 2007 she was employed by Birmingham City Council via the Bluecare recruitment agency but failed to mention her convictions when going through the GSCC registration process. Reeves, who did not attend the hearing, has 28 days to appeal.
http://www.birminghampost.net/news/2010/01/20/birmingham-social-worker-struck-off-after-failing-to-declare-conviction-65233-25646050/
Social worker is struck off for relationship with client
Published Date: 01 May 2009By Tara DundonA SENIOR social worker who fathered two children with one of his vulnerable clients has been struck off.A two-day General Social Care Council hearing heard that Richard Clasby (46) physically and sexually abused the woman during a four-year affair.
He admitted one allegation – that he had told her he would lose his job if she exposed their relationship – but was also accused of 11 offences related to drugs, aggressive behaviour, verbal abuse, threats to suffocate their child and demands for sex.
The hearing was told the pair entered into an affair and the woman, who cannot be named, claimed during their four years together he bullied her into silence and threatened to suffocate their children and commit suicide if their relationship was made public.
The committee found all the allegations had been proven.
In a joint statement, chief executive, of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust Karen Bell and Cambridgeshire County Council’s executive director of community and adult services Rod Craig said: “This kind of behaviour will never be tolerated.
“We will do everything we can to ensure that such an incident does not happen again in Cambridgeshire.”

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/Social-worker-is-struck-off.5228172.jp
Social worker in breach is struck off
Published Date: 04 February 2008By Alison BellamyA SOCIAL worker from Leeds has been removed from the Social Care Register at a hearing held by the General Social Care Council (GSCC), after being found to have breached the code of practice.
Alan Rhodes, who was employed by Leeds City Council, was found guilty of misconduct by the committee for forming an inappropriate personal relationship with a person who uses services.
Rhodes was the allocated social worker to that person and herADVERTISEMENT
children, who had been on the Child Protection Register.
The Committee heard that two of the children were moved to live with their father in Scotland without the knowledge of social services in Leeds or East Renfrewshire.
Rhodes had played a part in the move and was aware child protection procedures should have been followed.
Despite being suspended by Leeds City Council at the time, the Council decided that Rhodes had a responsibility to inform social services in Leeds about the move.
As a social worker with years of experience, he would have been aware of the risks involved in moving children without the correct procedures being followed. The children were later placed in care in Scotland.
The Committee concluded that Alan Rhodes’ behaviour fell far below the standards expected of a registered social worker.
They were particularly concerned by his failure to make the welfare of the children paramount.
The Committee also noted he had displayed no insight or remorse in disciplinary interviews, in the intervening period or in communications with the GSCC.
Sir Rodney Brooke, Chair of the GSCC, said: “When people become social care workers and register with the General Social Care Council, they agree to abide by a set of rules set out in our codes of practice.”
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Social-worker-in-breach-is.3741050.jp

Read more: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1576910?UserKey=#ixzz0euWM490u
Abusive social worker Stanley Lansdell struck offJan 8 2010 by Sophie Doughty, The Journal

A SOCIAL worker who swore at a vulnerable child and sexually harassed a member of his family has been struck off.
Stanley Lansdell of Chester-le-Street, County Durham, used false references when applying for work through a specialist recruitment agency.
And after getting a position with a council in Yorkshire, he went on to verbally abuse a child in his care with cruel taunts and sent the youngster’s cousin perverted text messages.
The 52-year-old was yesterday removed from the Social Care Register after a hearing in London heard these and a catalogue of other allegations relating to his professional conduct.
The General Social Care Council’s conduct committee was told how, after getting a job with Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Mr Lansdell was charged with the care of a 13-year-old boy, known as Child F.
On one occasion he phoned the vulnerable youngster, who had a tendency to cross-dress, told him to “get lost”, swore at him and called him “gay”.
He told Child F that no one would believe him if he made a complaint and that he would be taken into care. The social worker also made highly inappropriate remarks to a member of Child F’s family.He sexually harassed an 18-year-old woman, who he met through his work with the child, telephoning her in the middle of the night and sending her highly inappropriate text messages.
Mr Lansdell also preyed on another woman, who was in his care. He visited her home on several occasions, staying for more than two hours.
On one occasion he repeatedly told the woman she should not stay in the flat, and invited her to stay with him, telling her she could have a bath at his home.
After a two-day hearing, which Mr Lansdell did not attend, the committee determined he was guilty of misleading his employers and breaching professional boundaries while working for Bradford Social Services between February 2006 and April 2007. The committee agreed he had committed other blunders, such as failing to keep up-to-date files and giving misleading evidence in court.
Mr Lansdell was also accused of verbally abusing a colleague while working in a previous role at Darlington Borough Council, swearing at her and calling her fat.
The committee decided Mr Lansdell should be removed from the social work register immediately, saying he had serious attitude and personality problems and had grossly abused the trust of those he was supposed to be looking after.
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2010/01/08/abusive-social-worker-stanley-lansdell-struck-off-61634-25551718/2/
Smethwick social worker faces being struck off after intimidation claimsDec 7 2009 by Ben Goldby, Sunday MercuryA SOCIAL worker accused by her neighbours of threatening their children could be struck off.Verona Reeves, from Smethwick, West Midlands, who has previous convictions for theft, will go before the General Social Care Council’s (GSCC) panel in London to face charges that she intimidated the youngsters in front of their mum and dad.She is accused of telling two parents in June 2006: “I know where you live and I know where your kids go to school, and they better watch out.”Ms Reeves also faces action over criminal charges brought in December 2006 for theft and obtaining property by deception, and her failure to inform the GSCC about criminal proceedings against her.She was convicted by Dudley Magistrates Court on December 18, 2006, of stealing a Mint credit card, stealing £300 in cash, buying clothes with the stolen credit card, stealing £200 from Royal Bank of Scotland and buying £190 of shopping at Tesco with the stolen card.Her failure to inform the GSCC of her convictions means that she faces charges of dishonesty when she goes before the disciplinary board.It also emerged last night that Reeves was suspended in March, 2008, for six months following another hearing, but continued working for Birmingham City Council until the following May, flouting the GSCC’s ruling.A spokesman for Birmingham City Council said: “Until the GSCC hearing has been dealt with it would not be appropriate for us to comment on any of the details surrounding this case.”Ms Reeves had been due to face a full hearing of the GSCC’s independent conduct committee tomorrow, but the case has now been postponed while she consults with her legal team. The panel could strike her off the GSCC register or suspend her from practising as a social worker.A spokeswoman for the GSCC said: “To work as a social worker you must be registered with the GSCC, and we have an independent conduct committee which will review who is, or is not, suitable to stay on that register.”In October a government review into Birmingham City Council’s social services department branded it “not fit for purpose”.The inquiry was commissioned after eight children known to social services died in the space of just four years, including seven year-old Khyra Ishaq, from Handsworth, who was found starved to death last year.Councillor Les Lawrence, cabinet member for children, young people and families, claims that more social workers have now been recruited.
http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2009/12/07/smethwick-social-worker-faces-being-struck-off-after-intimidation-claims-66331-25330436/
Social worker struck off after child sex offences Latest news
ADVERTISEMENT
Published Date: 17 July 2009A SOCIAL worker has been struck off after being convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl.Kevin Mence (43), formerly of Walter Howes Crescent, Middleton, was employed as a social worker by Cambridgeshire County Council when the allegations came to light.
This week he was removed from the Social Care Register by an independent committee of the General Social Care Council (GSCC).
Mence was jailed in November last year after Norwich Crown Court convicted him of twice sexually assaulting the girl, who was not his client.
He was also convicted of making indecent images of a child and possessing over 700 indecent images of children, some of which he distributed.
He was jailed for 16 months, placed on the Sex Offenders Register for ten years and issued with a Disqualification Order preventing him from working with children.
The GSCC committee found Mence guilty of serious misconduct and said his offending behaviour represented a serious departure from the relevant standards in the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers that all social workers sign up to when they register with the GSCC.
It said that in order to protect vulnerable people and uphold public confidence in social care services the only appropriate sanction was immediate removal from the register.
Rosie Varley, chair of the GSCC, said: “All social workers have a responsibility to act appropriately and with integrity, abiding by the law and the GSCC code of practice.
“Thankfully the majority of the 80,000 registered social workers find no difficulty in complying with this. In order to maintain the safety of vulnerable people we take all matters of law breaking by social workers extremely seriously, and will not hesitate to apply the appropriate sanctions.”
Mence waived his right to attend the GSCC hearing.
He was removed from the register with immediate effect.
http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/Social-worker-struck-off-after.5468025.jp
Social Worker Struck Off After Biting SonYorkshire and Humber > South YorkshireArticle from May 2, 2004Woman whose sons were placed on protection register should not be in position of responsibility for other children, panel rules.A children’s social worker was struck off the professional register today after biting her son while under the influence of alcohol. The General Social Care Council (GSCC) said it could not name the individual or reveal the local authority where she worked. It received medical evidence that she suffered from an abnormal personality and longstanding mental health issues.
The case was heard in private by a conduct committee in Birmingham, under rules that guaranteed the social worker’s anonymity. She did not attend. The committee accepted evidence that the woman’s two sons were considered at risk of emotional abuse and placed on the child protection register for 11 weeks in 2003.
The council said “Ms X” had two convictions in 2004 for failing to give blood samples to police after being stopped while driving. She was dismissed by one local authority in May 2005, but did not admit the fact when she applied successfully for a social work job with another authority a few months later.
During 2006, her sons were placed on the child protection register for three months on the grounds that they were at risk of physical harm, and for a further six months on the grounds that they were at risk of emotional harm.
Last year, while drunk, she bit her 16-year-old son on the arm. As a result, her 13-month-old grandchild, who lived with her, was made subject of a child protection plan under the category of “at risk of physical abuse”.
The GSCC decided she should not be allowed to have responsibility for protecting other people’s children when she could not look after her own.
It said: “The committee decided that the behaviour of Ms X was so serious that the only appropriate sanction was removal from the register. The allegation consisted of 26 separate parts, all of a serious nature, which were repeated over a prolonged period and there was a significant risk of repeating behaviour.”
Ms X was removed from the register immediately and can no longer practise social work, but she has a right of appeal to an independent tribunal.
Rosie Varley, chairwoman of the GSCC, said: “All social workers sign up to a code of practice when they register with us and the majority of the 95,000 people on the social care register find no difficulty in complying with this, providing high-quality care to the hundreds of thousands of people who use services.
“It is vital in order to preserve public confidence in those services that we address misconduct and take appropriate action against those who commit it.”

As a regulator, the GSCC’s role is to safeguard public protection. If a social worker’s behaviour, in or outside work, calls into question their judgement, honesty or commitment to helping others we must take action. We do this in order to ensure that only those who are fit, trained and committed to putting the interests of service users first are able to practise as social workers.”
http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Ms+C+conduct+hearing.htm
Former Calderdale social services chief on child sex chargesPremium Article !Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.Options Premium Article !To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.Subscribe Registered Article !To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.Sign InRegisterFaces charges: Rod Ryall pictured in 1985
« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryADVERTISEMENTPublished Date: 26 September 2009 By Colin DruryA FORMER Calderdale Council social services chief has been charged with 13 sex offences allegedly carried out against teenage boys in the 1960s and 70s.
Three of the offences relate to incidents when Dr Rod Ryall is believed to have been a Scout leader at Sowerby Bridge.
The other 13 concern his time as a master at the former Aycliffe Approved School in County Durham before he moved to Calderdale.
Dr Ryall, a 67-year-old Oxford graduate, spent 14 years with Calderdale Council between 1974 to 1988. He lived at Scar Bottom Lane, Greetland.He was arrested in June.
Yesterday Durham Police said: “A 67- year-old man from Mirfield has been charged with 13 sex offences.”
He will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates Court on October 15.
http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Former-Calderdale-social-services-chief.5681482.jp
Exclusive: Secret list of rogue social workers booted for crime, corruption and pornJul 19 2009 Russell Findlay, Sunday MailA DOZEN rogue social workers who cared for Scotland’s most vulnerable people have been secretly struck off.A Sunday Mail investigation today reveals a shocking catalogue of criminality, corruption and incompetence in social services.One worker was struck off for running a stolen car racket and another for possessing child porn.Catherine Watt was struck off for life after being sacked as manager of Ramsay House children’s home in Clydebank for health and safety, financial and management failings.She also “obtained a management qualification by deceit” and breached West Dunbartonshire Council’s dignity at work policy.She was struck off by the Scottish Social Services Council, set up to regulate the profession in 2001. Watt said: “I deny all the allegations. I had 37 years of unblemished service and then this happened.”My former employers did a very good job on me.”Also given a life ban was Darren MacDonald, who “placed children at risk of harm” by botching 10 cases in Fife.Yesterday, married dad-of-three MacDonald, 30, claimed he had been “let down” by his former bosses at Fife Council.MacDonald, who compiled risk assessments on vulnerable children in Glenrothes, said: “I had been off with stress but they showed me no support.”They should have helped me instead of disciplining me.”It was my first job in social work and I was looking at about 30 cases at any one time.”I accepted there were failings on my part. I was struggling to tie up my cases and my bosses said children were being put at risk.”Others struck off this year are Karen Taylor, Catherine Forrest and Patricia Higgins, all of Glasgow, and John Donnelly, of North Lanarkshire.Taylor failed to “adhere to her employers’ absence management procedures and policies”.Donnelly failed to provide appropriate care for “vulnerable adults to their detriment”.Student social worker Forrest was banned for “dishonesty and plagiarism” in relation to university course material.And residential childcare worker Higgins failed to adhere to her “employers’ reporting practices and procedures”.The most high-profile social workers struck off are Kevin Glancy, 46, and Jackie McIlhargey, 44.Glancy – who worked with vulnerable children and families in Edinburgh – was jailed last year for having child porn.Fostering manager McIlhargey was struck off after the Sunday Mail revealed she ran a stolen car factory in Plains near Airdrie.Four more social workers have been struck off and, in the next month, four others face SSSC disciplinary hearings.They are Alan Mann, Glasgow, Margaret Gribbon, Clydebank, Derek Horrobin, Moray, and Heather Clark, Aberdeen.Mann is accused of using “inappropriate and degrading language” to a young client then criticising them for complaining.Deputy children’s home manager Gribbon was sacked by West Dunbartonshire Council two years ago. She is accused of 12 breaches of SSSC code of practice.They include failing to be “honest and trustworthy” and failing to comply with health and safety policies “including those relating to substance abuse”.Horrobin, of Buckie, Banffshire, worked part-time with children and families for Moray Council.He faces an SSSC rap for breaking the rules by running three licensed premises. In April, his licences were suspended for Bubbles nightclub in Buckie, Republica in Elgin and the Ben Aigen Arms in Mosstodloch.Grampian Police told councillors Horrobin had “a total disregard for the law” following violence and under-age drinking at Bubbles.Clark, 51, is accused of failing six vulnerable families and was sacked in March by Aberdeen City Council.The 12 breaches of the SSSC code of practice she faces include not being “honest and trustworthy”.She is also accused of failing to “minimise the risks of service users” harming themselves or others. Clark claims she and her colleagues were under such massive pressure they were all behind with records.She said: “They are making me out to be dishonest. I’ve nothing to hide but with no records I have nothing to back myself up.”The SSSC began holding disciplinary hearings three years ago. Since then, 19 social workers have been found guilty with 12 being struck off.Despite rooting out rogues, there are concerns that the SSSC keeps the public in the dark.They have previously refused to reveal any details about what sacked staff were found guilty of. Only in the past nine months have they begun to release basic details.But the public information is much less than that given by the English equivalent, the General Social Care Council.Respected Fife-based social work expert Alyson Leslie has been involved in four serious case reviews in England in the past year.Alyson, who chairs the General Medical Council’s disciplinary hearings, said: “The Scottish system is behind its English counterpart in terms of the information it makes available publicly about the nature of allegations and the facts found proved or not proved.”It is perfectly possible to provide this information without compromising client confidentiality.”Hard-working, hard-pressed, honest professionals don’t want the safety of the public or the reputation of the profession compromised by the small number of individuals who act unprofessionally or deliver poor standards.”Sssc chief executive Carole Wilkinson said: “Registration of the workforce is good news.”This gives more protection to those people who use social care services, many of whom are the most vulnerable people in society and deserve the highest standards of care.”We still have a way to go to get all care workers on the register.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/
Social workers ‘drugs claim’Chris Osuh
JUNE 15, 2009
TWO social workers have been arrested amid claims that one of them tried to sell cocaine to cops at a police party.
The women – who were employed by Manchester council – are alleged to have openly used cocaine in front of officers.
And one of them is said to have offered to sell some of the drug to them.
Now, one of the women, who was employed through an agency, has been sacked. The other has been suspended pending an internal investigation.
The party was held by Greater Manchester Police for people involved in child protection work. Social workers were invited.
It is understood that days later police searched Elizabeth House, a children’s services district office in Openshaw, and another district office in Manchester in front of shocked staff.
It is believed that sincein the aftermath of the arrests, senior management have been overseeing work in both premises.
Pauline Newman, director of children’s services at Manchester council, said: “A member of social work staff has been suspended pending investigation into allegations involving drug misuse during an after-hours staff celebration away from the office.
The allegations are also subject to a police investigation.
“The allegations also involved an agency worker whose contract has now been terminated. We expect the highest standards of behaviour from our staff and our actions reflect that we take these allegations very seriously.”
The women could face further disciplinary action from their profession’s regulatory body, the General Social Care Council.Greater Manchester Police said:“On Thursday May 28 2009, police in north Manchester arrested two women on suspicion of drugs offences.
“A 27-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of possession and supply of a class A drug.
“A 31-year-old woman was also arrested on suspicion of possession of a class A drug. Both were bailed until Wednesday 29 July 29, pending further inquiries.”
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1120683_social_workers_drugs_claim_

February 1, 2010

Interesting articles about Staffordshire County Council

Filed under: Staffordshire — nojusticeforparents @ 3:14 am
Tags: , , , , ,

I just thought some of you may be interested in reading the following

Staffordshire County Council (05/B/10487)

Children and family services     Maladministration causing injustice

14 December 2006

Staffordshire County Council failed to stop the bullying of a looked-after child in a residential unit, and then mishandled his complaints about it. The Ombudsman recommended the Council to apologise to the young man and pay him £3,000, as well as reinforcing to its front line residential staff the importance of following the designated complaints procedure.

‘Ed Adair’ (not his real name for legal reasons) was 19 years old. He had been a child looked after by the Council in its Hill House Residential Unit, which he considered to be his home. In 2004, after two new residents moved in, he suffered about four months of verbal and physical bullying that left him afraid and isolated. He was assaulted, abused, and his possessions were taken. A situation had been allowed to develop that posed a real risk to staff and residents. Ed Adair’s keyworker said at interview that she was afraid that there could be a death at the Unit.

Ed Adair made several complaints to the Council, but the Council did not handle them properly. The Ombudsman found that there had been significant failures in following the statutory complaints process and that it had failed to take effective action to prevent bullying within Hill House.

“Undoubtedly, the Council let him down badly,” said the Ombudsman. “Ed Adair’s experience was the stuff of nightmares, not knowing whether someone would assault him, abuse him, take his possessions or break into his room while he was asleep. For four months he lived with this anxiety and little was done to help him. The failures in dealing with his complaints and the delay meeting with him meant that the situation persisted for longer than it should have. It confirmed Ed Adair’s belief that no-one really listened and that nothing would change.”

The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and the Council agreed to:

  • apologise again to Ed Adair;
  • pay him £3,000; and
  • reinforce the importance for front-line residential staff of following the designated complaints procedure.
     

Date Published: 03/02/09

Care worker assaulted two boys
A 66-year-old man has admitted assaulting two boys in his care at Staffordshire children’s homes.David Michael Kendrick, from Lichfield, pleaded guilty at Staffordshire Crown Court on Wednesday to causing actual bodily harm to two children during the 1980s.The assaults happened when Kendrick was working as a residential child care officer in Stafford and at the former Riverside Children’s Home in Rocester, near Uttoxeter.His offences came to light during an investigation into several allegations of abuse at children’s homes in the county, some of them stretching back decades.

Kendrick’s is the seventh conviction that has come about since the inquiry into claims of physical and sexual abuse began.

The case was adjourned for pre-sentence reports until 12 December.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3265321.stm

Woman awarded abuse damages

Longdon Hall School, Staffordshire
Brenda Moult was 13 when she entered the care home

A Staffordshire woman has received £60,000 for psychological damage suffered as a child in a care home.Brenda Moult, from Newcastle-under-Lyme, said she was abused 20 years ago at Longdon Hall School, Staffordshire.

The payment was agreed in a out-of-court settlement with half the money being paid by Staffordshire County Council insurers and the other half by the school’s insurers.

Staffordshire County Council and Honormead Ltd, the company employed to look after her, have not admitted liability.

Convicted paedophile

Mrs Moult said £60,000 is not sufficient compensation for what she suffered.

She told the BBC’s Midlands Today programme: “I wanted justice and I have not been given justice.

Brenda Moult
Mrs Moult says that justice has not been done

 

“I haven’t been given the opportunity to stand in a court and say what I feel and try to get justice properly.”

Mrs Moult was just 13 when she was placed at Longdon Hall School – she says she was indecently assaulted by the then head of care, Richard Owen.

He was already a convicted paedophile.

She also said she was later sadistically abused again by a Staffordshire County Council worker.

This has never been proved and no one has supported her evidence.

To compile the case, lawyers had to trawl through 3,000 documents including reports, complaints and protests made by Mrs Moult.

She said: “They knew what happened.

“They knew, but didn’t care.”

A director of private company Honormead Ltd said employing a convicted paedophile would not happen today.

“We have to take every precaution.

“We do so now because we have a legal right to do so. At that time, we did not.”

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1715227.stm

Beck’s appalling crimes just the tip of child abuse scandal

 

Paedophilia: Further scandals may be revealed as inquiries show widespread cases 

By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent
 

Monday, 8 January 2001 

  •  

The appalling abuse committed by Frank Beck, who was entrusted with the running of three children’s homes in Leicestershire, was what alerted police officers to the possibility that a national scandal had gone undetected.
 
Before the conviction of Beck, who was sentenced to five life terms in 1991 for sexual assaults against more than 100 children, few officers believed that such widespread and systematic abuse was possible.
 
The true scale of Beck’s crimes may never be fully known but he is estimated to have assaulted between 100 and 200 children over 13 years. He was sentenced to a further 24 years on 17 charges of abuse, including rape. He died in jail from a heart attack, aged 52, in June 1994.
 
Tony Butler, the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire and spokesman on abuse issues for chief police officers, said: “In the past social workers and police officers simply didn’t believe the children. We didn’t think that short of thing went on in children’s homes. With Beck’s trial it became painfully clear that they could and did go on in children’s homes.”
 
Since Beck, many other abuse inquiries and trials have taken place, including the report by Sir Ronald Waterhouse into the horrific abuse of children in care homes in North Wales, which was first revealed by The Independent.
 
But as a survey by this newspaper has found, an unprecedented number of investigations are continuing and many more scandals may emerge.
 
The survey gives the fullest picture to date of where the inquiries are taking place. Many police forces have attempted to keep their work secret, partly for not wanting to alert potential offenders. Some are also concerned that by going public former residents may come forward and make bogus allegations in the hope of obtaining compensation.
 
These forces would rather approach potential victims and question them away from the spotlight of publicity. Others believe publicity is one of the best ways of obtaining new witnesses.
 
The Independent survey has identified 67 separate investigations at 32 of the 44 forces in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, where inquiries are either continuing or have recently been completed.
 
A national database of historic abuse inquiries, most concerning children’s homes and schools in the Seventies and Eighties, held by Gwent police, has a list of 34 forces involved in 98 separate inquiries. The numbers are increasing on a monthly basis.
 
The database aims to link alleged perpetrators to different inquires, and expose paedophile rings and examples of travelling abusers. So far the police have 59 links or “hits”. These cases are taken from a list of more than 1,800 names of suspected paedophiles, convicted abusers, and care workers, teachers and individuals, who have aroused suspicion.
 
A total of 67 investigations have been identified by The Independent. The police have asked for details of some of them to remain a secret because they are at a particularly sensitive stage. They involve more than 400 homes and school, at least 2,000 victims, 415 suspects, and have in excess of 400 detectives working on them full-time. They have so far resulted in at least 51 convictions and there are 25 trials pending.
 
Many of the inquiries are huge and involve substantial resources. In Greater Manchester, Operation Cleopatra is investigating more than 66 care homes. Operation Flight in Gwent is investigating 19 homes, including the former children’s home at Ty Mawr near Abergavenny in west Wales. The police want to trace 10,000 former residents.
 
In Devon and Cornwall, Operation Lentisk is examining allegations of abuse throughout the two counties between 1960 and 1985. A 34-strong team is investigating allegations from more than 230 former pupils and residents against 102 alleged offenders.
 
Not surprisingly, considering the vast area it covers, the Metropolitan Police has the most investigations, with 22 recorded on the national police database. These include a 31-strong team to look at 30 local authority care homes in Lambeth over allegations of abuse against up to 200 children, said to have happened from 1974 to 1994.
 
Operation Care in Merseyside is investigating 84 care establishments. So far 27 people have been convicted of physical and sexual abuse.
 
The care scandal started to emerge in 1989 when the police investigated a series of complaints from past residents about abuse in Castle Hill, a privately owned home in Ludlow, Shropshire, which took in children from local authorities. Allegations of abuse were made by 57 victims, and in 1991 Ralph Morris, proprietor of the home, was jailed for 12 years.
 
The inquiry sparked off a series of new investigations, most notably in Staffordshire, North Wales and Leicestershire.
 
The extent of the institutional abuse, in which hundreds of vulnerable children suffered the most appalling assaults and mental torture, was illustrated by the Tribunal of Inquiry headed by Sir Ronald Waterhouse. His report, published last February, said at least 650 people had been abused in children’s homes in North Wales.
 
But while many people had hoped that the worst of the care scandals had already come to light, the extent of the current investigations, and likelihood that these will mushroom, make this a vain hope.
 
* The latest child abuse scandal to hit the Catholic church came to light yesterday as police confirmed investigations into accusations of sexual abuse and brutality by monks.
 
A report is said to name 12 former teachers and care workers at St Ninian’s List D School. The school, operated by the Catholic teaching order the De La Salle Brothers in Gartmore House, Stirlingshire, was closed almost 20 years ago.
 
The allegations, which cover more than two decades – between 1960 and 1982 – are believed to centre on seven monks and five staff. Two ofthe monks have since died while the remaining five have retired.

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/becks-appalling-crimes-just-the-tip-of-child-abuse-scandal-702598.html

Evening Sentinel, Stoke-on-Trent, 6 March 2002

Jury told of beatings at children’s home

By Sentinel Reporter
A 33-year-old labourer from Stoke-on-Trent told a jury how he was beaten and humiliated by a deputy head officer at a county children’s home.
 

Darren Underhill was aged 15 when he claims he was subjected to a series of assaults by Thomas Watson at Riverside Community Home School in Rocester.
 

He told the jury at Stafford Crown Court one of the beatings took place after he ran away from the social services home.
 

Mr Underhill said: “He said ‘you are going to have it when you get back’. I was thrown in a cell and there were four members of staff there. I got hit first and went down.
 

“I curled up in a ball and the next thing I knew I was kicked and punched. It might have lasted for a minute or two. I was screaming.”
 

He said he was taken to a medical room and received four stitches to a shin wound.
 

Stafford Cr