UKCORRUPTFAMILYCOURTS

April 30, 2010

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 12:15 pm

HYPOCRITICAL SOCIAL WORKERS

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 9:20 am
How’s this for “privacy”?
A malevolent judge threatened to send a mother and father TO PRISON if they went to the press or did anything that could betray the identity of their baby stolen at birth by social workers because they did not like her father!
HYPOCRITICAL SOCIAL WORKERS THEN ADVERTISED in the Daily Mirror to millions of readers offering no less than 10 unfortunate little victims FOR ADOPTION BY STRANGERS rather like pedigree dogs !

April 29, 2010

Cannock social services advertise children like lost puppies on BAAF website

I have just found MY twins on the adoption website the way social services have described them is unreal they are just babies not animals that have just started walking they are not noisey children they need to be at home with there real family not some people who think they can parent a child because they cant have them themselves i might be a young mum but i would never harm my children and they was taken away from me because i was a young SINGLE mum of twins its unfair young single parents should not be a traget its not very often you hear a teen mum harming her child infact on the news its been growen adults killing their children strarving them its disgusting social services should be ashamed and as for SHEENA ADAMS coming into my home and taking my beautiful children away from me half of them doesnt know what its like to be a mum MUMMY LOVES YOU KEISHA-JADE AND KACEY-JAYE WITH ALL MY HEART

This is from the poor mother who has discovered her children for sale in the forced adoption catalogue courtesy of Cannock Social Services.

This mother has obviously not willingly surrendered her children so those in doubt of the barbaric trade of forced adoption take heed.

See this mothers beautiful twins here . Do they look abused or neglected ?

http://www.bemyparent.org.uk/

STOP FORCED ADOPTION !!!!!!

http://researchingreform.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/child-snatching-by-the-state/

BAAF British Association of Adoption and Fostering (child stealing scumshite)

> Chief Executive – David Holmes
Executive Director – Barbara Hutchinson
Director BAAF Central England – Nick Dunster
Director BAAF Northern England – Erica Amende
Director BAAF Southern England – Jeffrey Coleman
BAAF Scotland Director – Barbara Hudson
Director BAAF Cymru – Jenny McMillan
BAAF Northern Ireland Director – Frances Nicholson
Director of Child Placement – Mo O’Reilly
Director of Fundraising, Media and Marketing – Diane Gault
Director of Publications – Shaila Shah
Director of Policy, Research & Development – John Simmonds
Director of Finance & Administration – George Wood

Peter Traves to be replaced with another ignorant director

Filed under: Secret family courts,Staffordshire — nojusticeforparents @ 4:55 pm

Any of you hoping for accountability after Mr ( travisty ) Traves takes voluntary retirement or for ss staff to face any actions over lies and misconduct . I have been informed that his replacement is the one and only Sally Rees who comes from the same puppet family as Traves.

If Sally Rees wishing to prove otherwise then meet with me to see my huge bundle of evidence or with the other parents now coming forward.

I thought not. No worries after all but prepare yourself to be highly embarrassed when these documents go live on the internet.

April 28, 2010

BREAKING NEWS

Massive increase in Social Services taking children into care

image for Massive increase in Social Services taking children into care
“All children will be confiscated if in the company of adults.”
Responding to the criticism of all Social Services departments across the UK over the handling of the Baby P case, West Nowhere Social Services are taking a much more pro-active approach.
“We do not want to be caught with our pants down,” a spokeswoman for the SS said, “So we are taking children into care at the slightest allegation.
“Just yesterday, for example, a member of the public reported seeing an adult take a child into a public toilet and we just had to act.
“The parent laughably claimed that she was simply ‘changing the baby’s nappy’ – a likely story!.
“Another woman was apprehended as she held a child’s hand whilst crossing the road – clearly another sexual abuse case!”
The woman is in custody pending charges of child abuse and the child is now being brought up by our childless SS staff.
Warning signs at the entrance to the borough state:
“All children will be confiscated if in the company of adults.”
This reporter looks forward to an increase in the crime figures when these kids grow up.
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s1i73960

Loony Social Services Stormtroopers take fertilized egg into care

image for Loony Social Services Stormtroopers take fertilized egg into care
Head of Social Services sends more snatch squads out.

Mr. and Mrs Jones had just settled in for the night in their pleasant home in Surrey and were getting “bu-sy” when there was an almighty thud from their front door followed by the sound of jackboots on the stairs, then their bedroom door flew open and social workers grabbed and pulled the couple apart.

“We have reason to believe you may be unfit parents”, announced one of them, then pulled out a large bathroom plunger and proceeded to remove a fertilized egg from Mrs Jones.

“We’ve never been so shocked or distressed, and I’ve never been so humiliated or in so much pain”, said Mrs Jones. “We’re decent folk. What do they mean ‘unfit parents’?”

We visited the Social Security Headquarters at the S.S. Building in Surrey, where Staff Sergeant Mrs Miller or possibly Frau Von Muller said “Vee had reezon to believe zat zee fazer had not paid a speeding ticket six months earlier. Vee vill be putting ze child up for adoption after it is born” (fake accent added by our editing department).

Justice for Families says that this is just one further example of overzealous behaviour by social workers. Their spokesman said:

“Previously, they used to stand by and do nothing when children were being abused by their parents and others. Now, it seems, they are going to the opposite extreme.”

The Joint President of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, Mr. T. Hobbes, a nasty, brutish and short man, said “Who gives a shit what the parents think? My wife can’t have children so fuck everyone else!”

‘Disturbed’ Goldfish Removed From Family Home By Social Services

image for 'Disturbed' Goldfish Removed From Family Home By Social Services
£17,000 Worth Of Abused Fish

Pandemonium broke out this afternoon on a council estate in Oxford when Social Services removed a ‘disturbed and abused’ pet goldfish from its family home, in a bowl, on the sideboard, and took it into protective custody.

‘This is outrageous,’ said Jimmy Flagg, 19, a father of eight and the fish’s rightful owner. ‘These Social Services people have lost it altogether. Something ought to be done about this.’

Mr Flagg put up a fierce struggle in an attempt to prevent Social Services removing the goldfish but was overpowered by some burly policemen and could only look on helplessly as the family pet was taken into custody.

Neighbours, on hearing all the palaver going on came out in support of Mr Flagg, hurling insults, tomatoes, and old James Brown 45’s at the Social Services and the police.

As the situation deteriorated, some men in black suits wearing sunglasses and carrying big sticks emerged from a bus and cleared the streets, pronto, with threats of violence and tins of rice pudding.

‘You’ve not heard the last of this!’ Mr Flagg shouted before retreating inside and slamming the door.

Letitia Gambino, a Social Services agent said: ‘I’ve never seen such a blatant abuse of fish welfare rights. The poor creature was swimming round and round in never ending circles, opening and closing its mouth all the time.

‘To any trained Social Services agent, this obviously signifies chronic distress. I am in no doubt that we have followed the correct procedures.’

We don’t see what all the fuss was about quite frankly. Apart from the fact that the ooperation cost something in the region of £17,000.

For a fish.

More as we get it.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s1i44273

German social services take bi-polar bear cub from mom

image for German social services take bi-polar bear cub from mom
Little Flocke looks a lot happier now he’s not going to be fostered by the Orca killer whale family

Nuremberg, Germany – (Reuterus): Social service have intervened in the controversy of baby Flocke the bi-polar bear cub whose mother was recently branded a negligent old slag by Nuremberg Zoo officials.

The five-week old bear was taken into care after its mom, Gudrun, was suspected of Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome.

The controversial diagnosis was originally invented by British quack doctor Professor Sir Roy Meadow as one good reason to jail single mothers who harm offspring to get attention – or, in the case of polar bears, an extra thirty kilos of fresh haddock for dinner.

At first Nuremberg social workers were keen to foster little baby Flocke with a large family of Orca killer whales, based on largely unsubstantiated reports that they have excellent parenting skills.

Fortunately somebody gave them an oceanic food-chain map that showed what young Flocke’s lifespan expectations might be in that scenario.

Eventually young Flocke was taken into care by keepers who looked after little bi-polar bear cub Knut last year and helped him flourish into handsome manhoood.

Gundrun meanwhile is said to be on anti-depressants.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i29078

Dummy’s guide to being a family court judge

Continuing our undercover investigations into the dark and seemy world of family law, here is another excerpt from the book, the Dummy’s guide to being a family court judge, given to all solicitors/barristers and magistrates about to embark on their first sitting in that Alice in Wonderland world of the Family Courts…

Definitions – to make your life a bit easier, we have defined some of the common terms you may come across in your brief attendance in these courts:

Children – These are small versions of adults. You may occasionally have seen pictures of these at home. You may recall that they were the names on the cheques that you wrote on a regular basis in connection with some boarding school or court fine or something. They are the reason given for the court hearings, but in fact that is just an excuse for having a go at their ex-partner in front of you.

CAFCASS – This is the organisation who provide expert opinions on why the mother is the best parent. Their job is to spend lots of time with the mother and get to know her and her reasons for opposing contact. They then write out what she said in their own words and you mostly have to follow their conclusions. Beware! Some CAFCASS officers may suggest that children ought to SEE their father occasionally! In those rare cases, you have the perfect right to ignore their conclusions and find for the mother anyway.

OPEN Courts – This horrific suggestion has largely been ignored by the government. The idea that THE PUBLIC might want to see the unbelievable things that happen in secret in your court is too horrible for words! They might even compare what you say with what other judges say elsewhere and suggest that there is a difference and use it to criticise you, heaven forbid! Don’t worry, though, so far only the media are allowed in and none of them are really interested in ordinary cases – only those involving celebs.

April 27, 2010

Podcast With Researching Reform

http://researchingreform.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/child-snatching-by-the-state/

April 26, 2010

Social Services will snatch you at birth, Abuse you then dump you when your 16 ( by which time they will have alienated you from your natural family )

State Care; They’ll Snatch You At Birth, Abuse You Then Dump You When You’re 16

Welcome to the UK.  The only place on earth which guarantees one thing, Child Protection is the last thing on the Government’s agenda.  Child destruction is the method chosen by the current system.

How on earth can Social Services fail to save a battered baby after 60 chances to save him?  And why on God’s green earth do we allow these scum to get away with destroying the lives of innocent children day after day?

In the UK, this system currently in place allows this sequence of events to happen:

  • Mother declared unfit due to having previously been in an abusive relationship
  • Social Workers decide child could suffer future “emotional harm”
  • Child removed from loving stable environment with no unfixable problems
  • Child placed into care home costing £2,500 a week
  • Child bullied and sexually abused in care home
  • Child sent to Foster home
  • Good foster carer gives up on child due to life circumstances
  • Child sent to another Foster home where they are abused
  • Child leaves care with no education and addicted to class A drugs
  • Child ends up in prison, prostitution or worse, dead
Well congratulations Nazi Britain, you’ve ruined the life of another child, pat yourself on the back.  Some reading the above statements may say that that situation is highly unlikely.  Well check the sources of information below, backed up with the information on the UK Abuse section of this site and think again.

Sources of information:
http://www.epolitix.com/stakeholder-websites/press-releases/press-release-details/newsarticle/one-in-four-care-leavers-face-a-bleak-future-says-care-leavers-foundation///sites/national-care-leavers-week/
http://www.wisegeek.com/who-are-care-leavers.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8574591.stm

April 25, 2010

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

April 22, 2010

Jack Straw caught LYING about children

April 18, 2010

Dimbleby Rocked By Questions Of Paedophilia And Murder courtesy of Pie n Mash films

P&M Press Release 16 April 2010
Dimbleby Rocked By Questions Of Paedophilia And Murder
Angry documentary filmmaker Bill Maloney was thrown out of the ‘Leader’s Debate Question Time Special’ audience by David Dimbleby for speaking about Institutional child abuse, the restraining techniques used in YOIs and government paedophile rings.
Just moments before Question Time went live David Dimbleby introduced the panel asking each of them what they would be doing the next day. Michael Gove (Shadow Secretary of State for Children Schools and Families) said it was his wife’s birthday and Dimbleby asked if he had bought her a present to which he replied, “I actually bought her four presents”. Asked what the presents were Gove replied “A linen suit, a designer hand bag and two other presents that I’m not prepared to divulge”. Maloney shouted “Did we pay for them Mr Gove?” which raised a laugh from the panel and audience. Dimbleby concluded with Nigel Farage MEP of UKIP who made a sanctimonious remark to which Maloney shouted, “I don’t know why you’re so flippant, you’re guilty of stealing expenses the same as all the rest”. Dimbleby shook his finger and shouted at Maloney “If you are going to behave like this when we go on air I will have to tell you to leave.”
Maloney responded by shouting “If you want me to leave David tell me to leave. Don’t talk to me like I’m a piece of shit! You’ve got an angry electorate here and you select only five questions from 150? This is a biased audience which does not represent the lower classes.”
“I’m a documentary filmmaker and I investigate Institutional child abuse; the restraining techniques that are killing lower working class kids in Young Offenders Institutions; and paedophile rings in government that are fucking our kids! You don’t like talking about the children do you David?”
Security was then called. As he was led out Maloney turned to the panel shouting, “I’m here about the children, not about the economy. I’ve got more bollocks than all of you! Shame on you!” Maloney’s wife continued by shouting “Everyone in this audience should google Hollie Greig G.R.E.I.G and realise that the government does nothing!” †
The security guards didn’t lay a finger on Maloney as he was led out by the Producer – in fact the security guards looked like they wanted to pat him on the back!
Maloney submitted two questions to the show which were not selected, one on the issue of crime:
Considering the government has given £840 billion to bail out the banks, how much have they spent on getting 3.5 million children out of poverty? Give the £3.4 billion promised to get children out of poverty which ‘breeds’ crime.
The second was on the issue of institutional child abuse:
Considering it cost Australian taxpayers 200 million dollars for the Popes visit there in 2008, how much is the government spending on the Pope’s visit to the UK? And should we allow the Pope, whose Vatican City has the lowest age of sexual consent in Europe of only 12 years, into the country at all?
All Maloney wanted was his questions answered, as no politicians are willing to discuss these issues.
For further information or to arrange an interview with Bill Maloney Please contact Maria Maloney Tel: 07710 416470 or email:maria@pienmashfilms.com

We appreciate your comments about Bill’s work and for inviting him to consider speaking at future roadshows etc. He is definitely interested, particularly any that may be held in the South of England/London areas – and further afield if funds allow.

Many thanks to Pie N Mash films and we look forward to seeing more of their work and to hopefully work with them in the future.

April 13, 2010

Judge shocked by social workers who split families

Judge shocked by social workers who split families

New head of family courts warns against ‘arrogance’ as care applications soar in wake of Baby P case
Patrick Butler
The Guardian, Tuesday 13 April 2010
Article history
Lord Justice Wall: ‘The aim of social workers should be to unite families rather than to separate them.’ Photograph: Sarah Lee
Social workers have been criticised over attempts to permanently remove young children from their mothers by the new head of the family courts, who said their legal duty should be to “unite families rather than separate them”.
Lord Justice Wall – who will be sworn in today as the president of the high court’s family division – described as “shocking” the failure of social workers in the London borough of Greenwich to support a mother trying to make changes to her life and get back her two children, who are in care.
The judge said the case would do little to dispel the perception of many that social workers were “arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents into an unsatisfactory care system – trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process”.
The judge said: “I am very conscious of the criticism that social workers are damned if they do and damned if they do not.” But he added that at the same time their duties in care proceedings under the Children Act were plain and their aim “should be to unite families rather than to separate them”.
Sir Nicholas Wall’s appointment as the president of the family court division was initially rejected by Jack Straw before finally being confirmed last month. In December he made waves after he told a legal conference that the judiciary had to “come off the bench” to “speak up about the parlous state of family law”.
His comments on safeguarding practice come as social workers face increasing pressure to intervene to protect children at risk of abuse. Since the Baby Peter case in November 2008, when social workers were criticised for failing to prevent the killing of 17-month-old Peter Connelly at the hands of his mother, her lover and her lodger, there have been record numbers of applications to take children into care.
Hilton Dawson, chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, said he was “a little astonished” by Lord Justice Wall’s remarks. He said it was incorrect of the judge to say the aim of the Children Act was to keep families together – it was to look after the interests of children.
He said: “I do not know about these cases in particular, but generalised remarks about ‘authoritarian’ social workers are just plain wrong.”
The Greenwich case involved a five-year-old boy and his sister aged three, who were taken into care in January 2008 after the girl was taken to hospital where her left arm was found to be broken in three places. Doctors said the injury was not an accident and both children were removed the same day.
At a hearing in November 2008 a judge said the girl’s father, who had a history of violence, was probably responsible for the injury, and confirmed the care order after concluding that Greenwich council was right to suspect the mother was still in contact with the father.
But Mrs Justice Baron, sitting with Lord Justice Wall, overturned the “draconian” order, saying that the mother was “warm and loving” and had tried unsuccessfully to get help from the council to help her escape her abusive relationship.
Lord Justice Wall called this a “very poor social work practice” and added: “She both needed and sought help and was quite improperly rebuffed by a local authority which had plainly prejudged the issue.”
A spokesperson for Greenwich council said: “Our priority was, and always will be, to protect children from being violently abused. In this case there was overwhelming evidence that a baby had been physically abused and we developed a care plan to provide safety and security for the baby and another young sibling.”
He said the council accepted the court’s concerns about the lack of support provided to the mother and said it was arranging for an independent review of the case “so we have the best plan to ensure the welfare of these very young children”.
In a second case, also heard last Friday, Lord Justice Wall criticised an attempt by Devon county council to overturn an court judgement that a teenage mother, known as S, should be given a last chance to prove herself fit to keep her baby boy.
Devon’s lawyers argued S had a propensity to form relationships with potentially dangerous individuals, putting herself and her baby, known as H, at risk, and the baby should be put into foster care as a further period of assessment was unnecessary.
Lord Justice Wall described the council’s argument as “pretty unattractive” and said: “Local authorities don’t seem to understand that the public perceive them as prejudging cases of this nature.”
Another judge, Lord Justice Aikens, who was sitting with Lord Justice Wall on the Devon case, said there was no evidence that the mother had maltreated her baby in any way, or that the violent father of her first child, whom she had agreed should be adopted, would have anything to do with S’s baby.
He said the “outside perception” might be of social workers who were effectively saying to the mother: “Whatever you may do doesn’t make any difference – we are going to take your child away.”
He added: “That is more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the west of England – that is the impression you give.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/13/judge-shocked-social-workers-families

010

Judge in charge of family courts criticises ‘arrogant social workers’

Baby Peter

Social workers have been criticised as “arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents” by the judge who takes charge of the family courts today.

Lord Justice Wall said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.

In a separate case, on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West of England”.

The criticism of social workers from two of the most senior family court judges came as the number of children placed in care has reached a record high after the Baby Peter tragedy.

Social workers say that they are not prepared to take any chances after the death of the 17-month-old toddler at the hands of his mother, her lover and their lodger in Hackney, East London. He was being monitored by social workers at the time of his death.

The remarks are likely to be seen as a warning to social workers not to take children into care before all other avenues have been exhausted. They may also be seen as a signal to the family courts to challenge more robustly legal orders to take children into care.

Lord Justice Wall made his comments in a highly critical ruling against Greenwich Council, where social workers had taken two children into care and begun adoption proceedings despite their natural mother’s best efforts to change her life.

The Greenwich case involved a mother known as “EH”, who is seeking the return of her son “R”, aged 5, and daughter “RA”, aged 2, from care.

The children were taken into care in 2008 after the parents had taken RA, then a baby, to hospital, where her left upper arm was found to be broken. Doctors considered that the injuries were not accidental, social services were informed and both children were removed from their parents that day.

Initially they went to live with their maternal grandmother but were moved into foster care after a dispute between the grandmother and their father. Since June last year the father ceased to have any contact with the children and the mother has attempted to separate from him, alleging domestic violence.

Social workers refused to believe that the relationship was over, while rebuffing the mother’s request for help in ending the relationship. Lord Justice Wall described the conduct of the social workers as “hard to credit”.

“Here was a mother who needed and was asking for help to break free from an abusive relationship. She was denied that help abruptly and without explanation. That, in my judgment, is very poor social work practice,” he said.

“What social workers do not appear to understand is that the public perception of their role in care proceedings is not a happy one. They are perceived by many as the arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents into an unsatisfactory care system, and as trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process. This case will do little to dispel that.”

The adoption order has now been set aside after the ruling made last Friday.

In the Devon case, on which Lord Justice Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens criticised the actions of social workers in pursuing plans to have a baby adopted without giving his mother a last chance to show that she could look after him. The Devon legal team was given time to read the Greenwich judgment and withdrew their case.

Lord Justice Wall will be sworn in today as the president of the High Court’s Family Division. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, originally challenged his appointment. Lord Justice Wall has been an outspoken critic of some government policies, including the funding of family courts.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7095791.ece

Social workers were ‘enthusiastic removers of children’

By Richard Garner, Education Editor

Tuesday, 13 April 2010

SPONSORED LINKS:
Ads by Google

Titan Casino Games Online
Download & Get Up To £4000 BonusTo Play Titan Casino. Play Now!
www.TitanCasino.com

Spread Betting – Try Now
Try GFTs Award-Winning TradingPlatform. Free Practice Account.
www.GFTuk.com

William Hill™ Online
Get The Best Odds Online,Plus A Free £25 Bet. Join Now!
www.WilliamHill.com

€200 Bonus at Bwin Casino
Best Casino Games & Hottest Dealsat Bwin Casino. Join Us Right Now!
casino.bwin.com/bwin-casino

A leading judge accused social workers of behaving like “Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China” for the way they went about permanently removing children from their mothers.

Lord Justice Wall, who will be sworn in today as president of the Family Division of the High Court in London, was referring to two specific cases. One involved Devon County Council, which did not give a mother a last chance to prove her baby was safe with her. The other was in the London borough of Greenwich, whose social workers did not support a woman in her fight to regain custody of her two children, who were in care.

Lord Justice Wall said the way Devon County Council acted was “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the west of England”. And he said the Greenwich case would do little to correct the perception that social workers were “arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children into an unsatisfactory care system – trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process”.

However, he accepted that social workers were “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” following the case of baby Peter Connelly, in which staff at Haringey Council in north London were condemned for failing to act on signs that the 17-month-old was being abused. Peter, who was on the child protection register, died in 2007 from injuries including a broken back.

Lord Justice Wall said the legal duty of social workers involved in care proceedings was plain and “their aim should be to unite families rather than separate them”. He said that when he heard the Devon and Greenwich cases at the appeal court, he granted each mother more time to show they could parent their children safely. In the Devon case, the council said the mother had a propensity to form relationships with potentially dangerous individuals extremely quickly, putting herself and her baby at risk – an argument that the judge called “pretty unattractive”.

The Greenwich woman’s son, aged five, and daughter, two, were taken into care after the girl’s arm was broken in three places. Lord Justice Wall noted that the mother had since separated from her partner despite being denied help from the authority “to break free from an abusive relationship”.

Judge says social workers are like ‘Stalin’s Russia’

Social workers have been called ‘arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children’ by judges.

Lord Justice WallLord Justice Wall: branded social workers ‘arrogant’

Their practices were more like those in ‘Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China’ than what would be expected here, said one senior judge.

The comments came in two cases before the Court of Appeal involving bids to permanently remove young children from their mothers.

In both cases – in Greenwich, south-east London, and in Devon – judges granted the mothers more time to show they could look after their youngsters.

Ruling on the Greenwich case, Lord Justice Wall said of social workers: ‘They are perceived by many as the arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents into an unsatisfactory care system and as trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process.’

In the case, a mother was seeking the return of her five-year-old son and two-year-old daughter. Three judges set aside a decision to grant a full care order to Greenwich Council, which wanted the children adopted.

On Friday, they concluded the ‘warm and loving’ mother, who had left the girl’s violent father, had not been supported by social workers.

In the second case, Devon County Council was to appeal against a ruling that a teenage mother should be assessed to see if she is fit to keep her baby boy.

After reading the Greenwich judgment, the application was withdrawn. Lord Justice Aikens said of the bid: ‘It is more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China… that is the impression you give.’

Greenwich Council accepted the concerns about lack of support for the mother. Devon County Council said it felt a care order was in the child’s best interests.

April 12, 2010

Reviews so far on conference

Well, what can I say? Considering the subject matter, it’s not at all surprising that the place was charged with emotion from minute 1. It was palpable. No punches were held back, the entire day was a wake up call, an assault on the senses and for anyone who wasn’t there, let me tell you; you had to be.

Fortunately for you all, there were cameras everywhere. I filmed it myself, and over time I will be posting videos uncut and unbleeped. Just to give an idea of what an emotional experience it all was.

At times I myself was on the verge of tears. We had parents whose children had been taken for no good reason other than to fill care contracts, who found within themselves the courage to stand up and give a three-minute brief on their situations. To those, I salute you! For myself, and I’m sure for many, many other people, we could bang on about our own cases all day long, but that isn’t the point of this conference, that’s what blogs such as this one are for. What the conferences are intended for is to make the wider public aware of what is going on, by giving an overview. Yes, we have plenty people waiting, willing and able to relate their stories, but for most of them, who don’t know how to go about it, they’re stuck. This is what my public hat is for – to show them how. To teach them how to blog, to give them the confidence to speak out without fear, and to give them the strength to keep fighting not just for themselves, but to give them that reserve back that they might be able to help others they find along the way who are in the same state as I found them. I am of course, putting all my energy into regaining my own children but as you all well know the so-called judicial process takes its sweet time doing anything, so I find myself with lots of spare energy while I wait for that to trundle along to offer myself to others who genuinely need help.

So to those I met Saturday, particularly to the very special guests Hollie & Anne Grieg, to the speakers: Brian, Ian, Jack, Robert, Shee, Zoomy, Jane, Linda, and the rest – you know who you are – I thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving me the opportunity to meet you all and speak with you all, I only wish it could have been under better circumstances, but I do hope you would join the Roadshow (details as they emerge – it’s just an idea at the moment!) and help spread the word.

Videos to follow.

PS: Sam and Mark and partners, I so humbly apologise for not being able to get you the promised opportunity to say your pieces, it was not a technical problem I can assure you, the problem(?) was that the queue of people for the open mike and the fact that the laptop was the far end of the stage meant that Brian couldn’t scoot over with the mike for you! Next one we’ll have a teleconference going!

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

This entry was posted on 2010/04/12 at 08:41 and is filed underBackgroundBrian GerrishChild Snatching By The StateCommon Law,EducationFMOTLGenocideHollie GriegIan JosephsJane Webb,LyndamacMark McDougallNews & Current EventsRobert GreenSam HallimondSocial EngineeringZoompadcivil libertiescorporate crime,cover-upfraudkidnapslavery . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackbackfrom your own site.

http://thelostpacket.wordpress.com/

Su and I attended the Child Snatching by the State conference this weekend. It was a pleasure to meet her (and her family, albeit briefly!) I am hoping that Su will write up her notes, too, and I will amend this post as necessary.

There was a vast amount of information to take in and I am still processing it. What I propose to do in this post is to provide a brief rundown of the speakers and the key themes that arose from the day. I will then expand on the key themes and offer some Renegade analysis over the next week or two.

We started off with an introduction by Brian Gerrish, who is well-known for his work on forced adoption and Common Purpose. I know that some political bloggers exercise extreme caution around the issue of Common Purpose, preferring not to be labelled as conspiracy theorists, but nevertheless I think that there are valid criticisms to be made of this organisation, its modi operandorum, and the outcomes it seeks to achieve.

Fewer people doubt that children have been and are removed from innocent families by incompetent or vindictive social services departments. This problem – now covered by the mainstream media on a regular basis – is exacerbated by the closed nature of the family courts system, and the gagging orders that prevent parents (and children) from speaking out about what is happening to them.

Then Ian Josephs spoke. He witnessed first hand the collusion and corruption that can occur within local authorities when children are unnecessarily removed from their families and placed into care settings. Even now, many years later, he still offers free legal advice and help to anyone who is threatened by social services departments.

Ian described in some detail the individual and organisational drivers for forced adoption that operate interdependently, creating tightly controlled situations with foregone conclusions that are difficult to resist. However, he also provided clear information and instruction on the best way to deal with such situations and ensure the greatest possible chance of removing one’s family from the clutches of social services.

Jack Frost, author of the Gulag of the Family Courts, articulately described the deeply embedded and organisationally protected nature of false abuse accusations. Two consultant paediatricians alleged that his wife had Muchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy, after his daughter became ill with ME at the age of 12. His family had direct and prolonged experience of:

the veritable thriving yet dependant food chain of social workers, charities, local government officials and ‘public officials’, whose livelihoods and careers depend on instigating care proceedings and taking ever more children to feed the conveyor belt of linked foster care and adoption agencies. Which agencies are themselves, often owned or managed by ex-social workers and ex- local government officials!

After lunch the stage was given over to parents who had had their children stolen from them by social services (in at least one case aided and abetted by the NSPCC), and children (now adults) who had been stolen from their parents and violently abused in care settings. This was the most distressing part of the day and, I suspect, the reason why no social workers attended this event. To stand in front of these people and justify or defend current safeguarding policy – policy that fails abused children and non-abused children alike – is an impossible task, regardless of whatLord Laming says.

There followed a talk by a Canadian, Kevin Annett, who “told the untold story of the genocide of Aboriginal peoples in Canada”. He provided information and exerpts from his film, Unrepentant, to highlight the brutal treatment, torture and murder of children in church-run Indian residential schools. Whilst this topic was somewhat tangential, it was nevertheless something I was glad to have brought to my attention, and it also confirmed two other areas of thought:

  1. The tactics that people use to break up families and break down individuals are the same the world over, and
  2. State sanctioned, organised “care” of children is forever ideally placed to be hijacked and appropriated by those who harbour abusive, fascisteugenic tendencies.

I was also made aware of the Indian Act, which (as I understand it) mandates that Indians who live on reservations in Canada are essentially wards of the state, and cannot refuse the “offer” of medication or immunisation, for example.

Finally, Robert Green stood up and spoke at length about the case of Hollie Greig, who was sat in the audience with her mum, Anne. All of the information is available here, and I would advise that anyone who struggles to believe that such a monumental cover up could ever take place should first read the website and related documentation.

So, just off the top of my head, here are some key themes I am happy to expand on:

  • Crackpot conspiracy theory or legitimate concern?
  • Common tactics to divide and conquer
  • How to protect your family
  • Campaigning for change
  • What to do next
  • Reading list and resources

What do you think?

http://www.renegadeparent.net/post/Child-Snatching-by-the-State-conference-first-thoughts.aspx

Child Snatching Conference in Stafford was a great success

Pictures Courtesy of Stafford Post
Fight is to go national
Apr 21 2010
The Stafford mum behind the town’s controversial conference that ‘lifted the lid’ on forced adoption has announced she is organising a national tour to highlight the injustices of the family courts system.
Campaigner Jane Webb brought together over 200 people at Stafford Rangers FC for ‘Child Snatching by the State’ on April 10.
At the event distraught parents revealed their heartbreak battles to be re-united with their children while others called for changes in the law to prevent children being adopted without parents’ consent.
Ms Webb told the Post the event had been a massive success, having brought together campaigners and families. “The response has been incredible, both on the web and locally, so we are now organising a national tour,” she said. “We need to do this because there is nothing being done to support these parents and keep families together.”
She said the ‘Child Snatching by the State’ group would now fight to get juries into family courts, halt forced adoptions and call for end to parents being ‘gagged’ by courts.
Speaker and businessman Ian Josephs, who flew in from Monaco for the conference, described the family courts system as ‘a disgrace’.
‘State child snatch’ parents speak out
Apr 14 2010
By Lynn Grainger
Broken families revealed their heartbreak battles to be reunited with their children at a controversial conference held in Stafford on Saturday.
The emotively-titled ‘Child Snatching by the State’ brought together campaigners, parents and families fighting to make the public aware of ‘injustices’ in the family courts system.
They want changes in the law which would put an end to ‘forced adoptions’ – where children are removed without their loved ones’ consent – and to allow them to speak out about their experiences.
Around 200 people gathered at Stafford Rangers FC for the day-long event. Some travelled from as far afield as Spain and Monaco. They heard first-hand harrowing allegations of abuse, tales of families ‘torn apart’ and of one tragic case that ended with the death of a Stafford mother.
The event was organised by Stafford family rights campaigner Jane Webb.
On stage she paid tribute to local mum Willow Simpson who hanged herself at St George’s Hospital in 2007 after learning her son would be adopted without her consent.
“I’ve done this because there is nothing being done to support these parents and to keep families together,” she told the Post. “The main thing we want is to get juries into family courts, to stop forced adoptions and for the courts to stop gagging parents so they can speak out about injustice.”
One mum who took to the stage during the ‘open mike’ session of the conference spoke of her battle to win back her son who she claimed was abused in care. While being filmed for the event she said: “I will fight, fight, fight and I am not giving up, I will never give up. It’s me and his family that love him, not strangers in care.”
Speaker Ian Josephs, who runs a language school in Monaco, is fighting for changes in the law.
During the 1960s the campaigning father of seven re-united many parents with children who had been taken into care, while he was a councillor.
Now he wants juries, rather than a judge, to rule on family court proceedings and for the lifting of ‘gagging’ orders on parents who are going through the court system so they can speak out about their experiences.
“The family courts system is a disgrace,” he said.
He also criticised social services for removing babies from mothers due to the ‘risk of emotional harm’.
Organiser Jane Webb said the controversial event had been an ‘amazing success’.

http://icstafford.icnetwork.co.uk/news/localnews/tm_headline=8216-state-child-snatch-8217-parents-speak-out%26method=full%26objectid=26242040%26siteid=87875-name_page.html

Wow ! Many thanks to everyone for a wonderful day .I will post vids and media on here as they arrive.

Well done to all !!!!

April 8, 2010

£70k council pay-out to abused twin sisters

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 4:10 pm
£70k council pay-out to abused twin sisters
Last updated: 08/04/2010 13:42
TWIN sisters Helen Stuckey and Sarah Walsh, who were horrifically abused by their foster father, have received £70,000 in compensation from Staffordshire County Council.
Twins Helen Stuckey and Sarah WalshThe pair, who live in Stafford, say they were driven to the brink of suicide when the local authority put them in the care of a dad from hell.
During 15 years of “terrifying beatings, sexual abuse and starvation” the girls clung desperately to each other for support.
Meanwhile, social workers failed to intervene – despite SEVEN reports of physical abuse and even THREE admissions of guilt.
Helen said: “It’s like a large weight has been lifted. The council won’t admit that this was their fault but the fact they have given us this money at least means we can now try to get on with our lives.” From the age of two, Helen and Sarah say they were regularly thrashed. And their warped foster dad sexually abused Sarah between the ages of five and 16.
Social services didn’t know about the sexual abuse but Helen and Sarah claim it would have stopped if they had been taken away from their foster home.
The council is refusing to admit full liability saying the payout is for “help and support”.
Helen added: “It doesn’t seem to me that the child comes first.
“Social services received reports from our school, the police and the NSPCC during the period of our abuse but never stepped in to take us away.
“It feels like we have received no help and support throughout our recovery. There needs to be an investigation.” The twins say social services admitted in 1988 that they were worried about who was looking after them during the daytime. However, no action was taken. In 1994 the foster father agreed to stop using corporal punishment. Again no action was taken.
Meanwhile, the twins, who were too scared to say anything, were being punched by their drunken foster father.

Child snatching by the state conference update

Great news Ian joesph has confirmed i hope you all give him a warm welcome.

Robert Green , Anne and Hollie Grieg also confirmed.

Express and Star covered event last night and their should be Lynn journalist in attendance.

Weather Forecast is great and a buffet is available.

Please give a donation if you can for buffet as i am doing it out my own pocket however small.

Conference finishes at 5 but Rangers are opening a seperete bar which will be open till 12 for people to do much needed networking.

I look forward to meeting you all Saturday.

Big shout to my eldest boys and their friend who are coming over to help.

xxx

If this goes well its a start of many more xxxx

April 6, 2010

Staffordshire social services bully their own staff as well as families and children

Social worker ‘harassed at home’
Last updated: 01/04/2010 10:43
A Staffordshire County Council social worker complained he was harassed by the management following a heart attack and unfairly dismissed after complaining about work changes.
Generic Online News 4Ronald Moruzzi made his allegations against the council at Birmingham Employment Tribunal after more than 25 years as a social worker.
Ann Morgan, representing the council, denied Mr Moruzzi had been harassed.
She said changes had been made, including providing duty manager cover by certain social workers.
But Mr Moruzzi, of Ashbourne Road, Leek said he objected over the way the cover policy was introduced and complained he had not been fully consulted.
“I was harassed at home with a series of council letters after suffering from a heart attack,” he said.
“This harassment was because I had made an official grievance against the management over the work changes. I was even refused to add further complaints to my grievance.
“I eventually lost my job and I am now seeking compensation for unfair dismissal and harassment.” Former Staffordshire County Council social worker Mr Alan Paling said Mr Moruzzi had been a member of a social service team which was asked to provide cover for the duty manager.
“He said the cover policy was introduced in 2008 and was expected to be short term but became ongoing.
“There was a voluntary aspect about the scheme,” said Mr Paling.
“I was Rob’s line manager at the time and he was distraught on returning to work following his heart attack.” Tribunal judge Ann Coaster adjourned the hearing to a later date when a decision is expected.

http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/News/Social-worker-harassed-at-home.htm

peter traves on a wacking 128.00O Yet he cant be bothered to answer emails or investigate abuse or his staff

The town hall ‘fat cats’ revealed
Last updated: 01/04/2010 10:57
Stafford borough Council’s chief executive is one of a handful of people named in a new list of fat cat salaries in Stafford and Staffordshire.
Stafford Borough Council civic centreIan Thompson receives a total package of £105,980, made up of £94,012 salary, performance pay of £5,509.94 and a car allowance of £6,457.84.
The figures are revealed in the fourth Town Hall Rich List compiled by the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA), which shows which officers earn more than £100,000.
At Staffordshire County Council, there are six officers in the top pay bracket headed by chief executive Ron Hilton who is due to leave his £192,617 a year post after just two years in the job.
His package is made up of salary of £190,899.94, with a supplement of £1,717.
Corporate director Peter Traves pocketed £128,710 last year, while another corporate director Richard Higgs took home £127,861.
Eric Robinson, director of social services, was paid £125,753; Keith Caskett, deputy corporate director quality assurance, received £112,337, and Sally Rees, deputy corporate director vulnerable children earned £100,846.
In new legislation that comes into force today, authorities have to report on who their most senior staff are, their final remuneration and a breakdown.
Councillor Philip Atkins, leader of SCC, said: “This is a £1.24 billion organisation and the eighth largest authority in the country providing a significant range of services to the community.
“We needed to attract the very best of candidates to lead an authority that provides essential services to 830,000 people with a workforce of 28,000. These salaries are set below the market rate and are less than the chief executive and director salaries of other similar sized authorities.” A spokesman for SBC said: “Looking at the TPA figures the amount the chief executive receives is less than his predecessor. And Ian did not have a pay rise this year.
There is a great deal of responsibility on Ian who is the Chief Executive of the largest district council in Staffordshire and whose decisions can affect 123,000 people as well as thousands of businesses in the borough.”

http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/News/The-town-hall-fat-cats-revealed.htm

Council chiefs earn more cash than PM

Thursday 1st April 2010, 11:30AM BST.

A town hall rich list revealing high-earning council workers who take home more than £100,000 in wages and allowances was today released.

Chief executives at Dudley and Birmingham councils both pocketed more then the Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2008/09, according to the report by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

The report claims the highest earner in the West Midlands was Birmingham chief executive Stephen Hughes, with a pay package worth around £200,000.

It also claims former Dudley chief executive Andrew Sparke had a package worth £194, 600 which included a redundancy payment of just over £85,000.

As well as basic salary, the report takes into account other allowances and bonuses, including performance pay and redundancy payments.

It claims there were 12 executives in Birmingham with packages worth more than £100,000, six in Staffordshire, five in Walsall and Dudley, three in Sandwell, one who has now left. Cannock Chase, Wyre Forest, South Staffordshire, Stafford and Lichfield all had one.

Wolverhampton has eight listed although the council says the figures accidentally include three headteachers who should not have appeared on the list.

Nationally the figures show there were at least 1,250 council staff earning £100,000 or more in 2008-2009 which is up from 1,009 from the previous year.

There were also 166 earning over £150,000 in 2008/2009.A total of 31 council staff earned more than Gordon Brown up from 19 in the previous financial year.The average package for chief executives, including the allowances and bonuses, works out at £125,745 a year or £2,418 a week.

The information was gathered under the Freedom of Information Act.

John O’Connell, policy analyst at the campaign group TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Town Hall bosses have had a very good recession at taxpayers’ expense.

“More of them than ever are earning massive amounts.”

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2010/04/01/council-chiefs-earn-more-cash-than-pm/

April 4, 2010

social workers are targeting babies for adoption

The government is denying that social workers are targeting babies for adoption. Listening to desperate calls from pregnant women or mothers of new babies and toddlers on our help-line would quickly show their denials are not true.

Health visitors are often instructed to give all parents a “risk rating”, if possible while the child is still in the womb, or soon after the birth – this is done without parents’ knowledge or consent. The questionnaire used is highly inaccurate as a predictive tool, and has a very high rate of false positives. Pregnant teenagers, the unemployed, anyone with a history of mental illness, and so on, are on the watch list – supposedly so that they can get extra support, but it is often simply extra surveillance. Midwives are instructed to report risk factors, and are losing the trust of the women they care for.

When social workers investigate mothers as a potential risk to their children we see incredibly high stress levels in women who fear losing their babies (even if the fear may not be justified). Research has shown this high level of stress hormones in the mother’s blood can reduce the baby’s growth as well as causing behavioural problems in childhood. We also suspect that it is affecting the process of birth in a number of our clients. For example, delaying birth beyond term.

Expectant mothers who were themselves brought up in care have an increased risk of social workers taking their babies, without even giving them a chance to show that they can be good parents, and providing them support and help. The State is,in effect, saying “as your corporate parent we gave you such damaging care that you are unfit ever to be a parent yourself”.

Mothers with a previous history of mental illness (perhaps caused by bereavement or a damaging relationship), or mothers with postnatal depression (very common) or psychosis also risk losing their children. The extreme shortage of mother-and-baby psychiatric units where they can safely be together is a scandal; Primary Care Trusts are seldom willing to pay for such care outside their area. The grapevine in many communities is accurately circulating the risks, so mothers who may need medical care tell us they are concealing mental illness, for fear of their children being taken. Two academic studies have shown that questionnaires to identify postnatal depression no longer work, because mothers lie. This is dangerous, since we now know that suicide is the major cause of death associated with childbirth.

Women also tell us they are concealing the fact that their pregnancy resulted from rape, or that they suffer domestic violence, for the same reason. One man, after beating up his wife, hands her the phone and says “Now call the police – and the social workers will come and take your kids.” So she stays silent. Others tell us that social work intervention has resulted in aborting a baby they would have wanted.

Not all attempts to have children adopted succeed, and mothers may have them returned after weeks, or months. The intense bond fostered by the high levels of oxytocin the mother has from giving birth and breastfeeding has been damaged. The baby has lost the breast milk which gives life-long health advantages, and contact visits are never frequent enough to breast feed.

We are a pressure group with 40 years’ experience in supporting parents with complaints about maternity care. But since the unprecedented growth in calls about child protection proceedings in the last 9 years or so, we have accompanied clients to meetings and observed social workers’ home visits. We have been horrified at what we have seen, and equally appalled by the lack of accuracy and bias in many of their reports, and the selectivity of evidence they give to the courts.

Questions should be asked of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. In their annual inspections up and down the country they criticise local authorities whose adoption figures are not high enough. It is the rise in the adoption total that wins Brownie points, NOT a reduction in older children lingering in long term “care” with an unsettled future. Hence the social work snatching of new born – prime adoption material, which also met the needs of settled, wealthier, older infertile couples. As one client told us, “What they are doing is redistributive eugenics.”

Perhaps it is time we started measuring and recording the damage caused by ‘child protection’ interventions and doing the kind of cost-benefit analysis which is now required for drugs, surgery and other health interventions?

Beverley Lawrence Beech, Chair AIMS

Contacts:
Beverley Lawrence Beech – tel: 0870 765 1453 or email: beverley.beech@aims.org.uk
Jean Robinson – email: jean.robinson@aims.org.uk
Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services, 5 Ann’s Court, Grove Road, Surbiton, Surrey, KT6 4BE

http://www.aims.org.uk/

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CHILD PROTECTION ON PUBLIC HEALTH

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 6:14 pm

Dear Liam,

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CHILD PROTECTION ON PUBLIC HEALTH

You may recall that we sent you our analysis of our first 50 or so child protection cases when you first started looking at problems with medical expert witnesses. We read your most helpful document on supply and training of expert witnesses with interest, and responded to the questionnaire, and have seen your brief summary of responses. We are now preparing our second round of comments as NICE stakeholders on diagnosis of child abuse (greatly concerned, incidentally, at the truncated definition of the amended scope).

Medical opinions, however, are but a part of the system which impacts on children and parents. We are now so concerned at the adverse effects of child protection procedures in the UK that we felt we had to write to you. As a group which runs a national help line, we are seeing how serious, long-lasting and widespread the adverse effects of these expensive interventions are. Since, as advocates, and occasional Family Court witnesses, we see many case and court files, we know how questionable and inaccurate are the allegations, interpretation and documentation from which many investigations spring. Sometimes it is unclear where the trail began, and a surprising number seem to start after justified consumer complaints have been made about health care or other staff.

When instructions went out to all staff in contact with children to report concerns about risk, this seems to have been done with little prior thought, without consultation, and without provision for training. The result was the post-Climbie cover-your-back syndrome: ‘when in the slightest doubt, report to social services.’ We see a huge variety of standards, misunderstandings, prejudices, ill-informed interpretation of risk factors, cultural incompetence and even racism, in the initiation of cases from health visitors, teachers, midwives, nurses, doctors and others. Quite apart from the damage to families, each one of these reports pre-empts resources and often leads to substantial, and unnecessary, cost. Ironically, the basic, simple help or real support families would like, is unavailable because resources are lacking, that is not the focus of social work activity, and anyway nowadays many parents are afraid to ask because any contact with social services is too risky.

Community information grapevines work, and effectively circulate information about what people see as the growing risk of being investigated or labelled as a dangerous parent after contact with medical care. The risk is not merely perceived: it is real, and the consequences are devastating. Damage to the whole family structure (sometimes the extended family network and its support structure), to parental confidence and self-esteem, to children’s sense of security and safety, and their sense of security that their parents can and will protect them – these are very serious adverse effects. Often we find it is the most sensitive parents, to whom family life means everything, who are most damaged. We also have many concerns about damage we have seen to authority of black parents vis-a-vis their children, many of whom are already coping with multiple racial prejudice problems. As we have pointed out to NICE as stakeholders in their consultation of diagnosis of child abuse, such potential for harm must now be considered, and it is long overdue. The sheer cultural incompetence of many social workers has to be seen to be believed.

The following list is not exhaustive, but gives examples of typical problems. We make no claim for their being representative of the whole picture of child protection activities, of course, since we deal only with those who come to us for help. However, the problems we are finding seem to be echoed by other groups.

  1. FEAR OF ACCESSING MEDICAL CARE – Nowadays parents call us and ask for advice when their children have accidents, because they are afraid to go to A & E, and they know we run a totally confidential service. We cannot give such advice as we are not qualified to do so. We have been in existence for well over 40 years and can recall no such requests until about four years ago. There is now no health professional, or official help line, parents feel they can safely ask for help. All agencies, including NHS direct, will report anything they regard as suspicious. Innocent parents who have had one brush with the system, or social services investigation, or whose friends, relatives or neighbours have, now find the risk of avoiding treatment preferable to the risk of damage to the whole family of going for help.
  2. DISTRUST OF HEALTH VISITORS – Mothers are opting out of seeing health visitors, and are advising friends not to see them, after they, or someone they know, has had a similar encounter. Those who feel obliged to do so, tell them as little as possible. One incident and they tell us ‘I’ve made sure everyone in the village knows not to trust her.’ In some areas, however, merely opting out of seeing a health visitor (maybe because they don’t like her, or find her advice or manner unhelpful) is cause for referral to social services in itself – thereby confirming the increasingly common perception of them as the ‘health police’. Those who do see the health visitor are highly circumspect about the information they give.
  3. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF MEDICAL INVESTIGATIONS – Small babies with a tiny bruise are automatically given whole-body X-rays at an early stage. (‘Those who don’t cruise, rarely bruise.’ – ‘rarely’ being interpreted as ‘never’). The likely cause has sometimes proved to be equipment such as a baby-carrier or push-chair. Sometimes a boisterous older sibling – a toddler – is suspected but this cannot be proved. The parents, not unreasonably, are now continually worried about the future possibility of leukaemia. As these whole-body X-rays are now so common, (there should be a database of such exposures) the likelihood of this in some children must be increasing.
  4. CONCEALMENT OF POSTNATAL MENTAL ILLNESS – As at least two studies have shown, mothers are lying in response to the questions on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and they are concealing post natal mental illness, for fear of social service intervention. We knew this from our help line, long before the research appeared. A formerly useful, validated, screening tool no longer works. This is alarming since suicide is the largest cause of deaths associated with childbirth. We are dealing with seriously ill women, and we know that contact with child protection services only worsens their state but it is as if no-one cares. One immediately suicidal mother was told by her GP ‘We don’t have to worry now: the baby is safely in care.’ Everyone concentrates on safety of the baby, though statistically the chances of the mother killing herself are very much greater.

    The known serious long-term adverse effects for a child of losing a parent through suicide are not even considered. We seem to be the only remaining group who see mother and baby as a dyad, and think they need to be treated as such. The Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths report cases of suicide which are directly related to women’s fear of social services taking their children – real or imagined, and points out what a large number of children have been orphaned by post-natal suicide. These suicides are, of course, only measured for the first year post-natally, but we have clients at risk, and know of cases, long after that. We have many cases where social services intervention is intensifying and prolonging the very postnatal depression which they are seeing as the reason to take their babies. We have never yet seen a case where the mother found social worker intervention helpful or supportive. In the last fortnight I have worked with two women who I feel are suicide risks (one acute) solely as a result of social service management. As their babies are now over a year old, their deaths would not be included in the statistics, but we are prepared to give evidence to coroners if the worst happens.

    There are no Paternal Death statistics. Naturally postnatal mental illness in mothers is our major concern, but we are hearing of more and more cases of fathers tipped into depression by child protection investigations. The intervention itself is frequently toxic to mental health, and greatly damaging to self-esteem, which is particularly important where it is fragile to begin with, or families are already dealing with racism.

  5. LOSS OF BREASTFEEDING – Many mothers whose babies were precipitately removed, (they, and we, suspect as potential adoption material to meet targets) but had to be returned when a case could not be made, grieve for the loss of breastfeeding, with its long term benefits for mother and child, and for the damage to bonding. If and when children are returned, they are unable to re-establish it. One woman recently told us of the profound difference in feelings towards her two children, the first of which was affected by child protection actions and threat of removal, and the second, which had a happy normal birth. It is a story we have heard from a number of others. Even the threat of intervention or suspicion can cause serious damage in the sensitive postnatal period, and we have vivid descriptions from parents.

    In a number of cases mothers have expressed breast milk and begged social workers to give it to the baby, and they have refused. Others have not openly refused but mothers later discovered it was thrown away. One baby (an adoption target) was recorded by a paediatrician as ‘bottle fed from birth’ though all the notes clearly indicated otherwise. More recently some breast feeding mothers have been asked to express milk by social workers (we suspect as a result of European Court human rights decision on one of our UK cases P, C and S v. UK 16 07 02). They dared not refuse since it might lessen the chance of the baby’s return, but firstly this is often very difficult for the inexperienced primigravida, and the continued lactation (and oxytocin levels) added to their distress at the baby’s absence (a price all lactating mothers pay). It was not a choice those particular mothers would have made. In some cases the stress has caused lactation to fail totally, and the mother is further devastated. This is NOT a case that social workers are ‘damned if they do and damned if they don’t’, but that their ignorance and the way they use (and mis-use) information to strengthen their case often works adversely for both mother and child.

  6. INCREASED USED OF ALTERNATIVE PRACTITIONERS – After a brush with the system, more families in our files are avoiding orthodox medical care and increasingly turning to alternative practitioners for their own, and their children’s care. Whilst many parents are full of praise for the alternative practitioners they use, we have concerns about lack of paediatric and medical knowledge. I have never forgotten interviewing the mother of a young child who died from diabetes when parents followed such advice. Parents with ongoing medical problems are also foregoing care for themselves because they no longer trust the system.
  7. MORE CHOOSE HOME SCHOOLING – An increasing number of children in our files are being removed from school and are home educated, sometimes after a fairly minor brush with ‘protection’ services, because the educational system (including nursery education) is now seen as part of the surveillance process, which can be influenced by the whims, prejudices and occasionally hostility of individual teachers. Another child was removed from nursery school because the teacher there was questioned by social workers about the parents and is no longer trusted, so it is at home.
  8. MORE SEPARATIONS AND MARITAL BREAKDOWN – We have lost count of the number of marriages and partnerships which have broken down as a result of the intense stress caused by child protection investigations of what turned out to be innocent parents. The children now have an absent father and are largely cared for by the traumatised mother. This loss alone is far more damaging to the child than the potential harm of which parents were initially accused.
  9. REDUCED PROSPERITY AND WELL BEING – We have been surprised to see how often families suffer considerable financial loss and are in reduced circumstances because of intervention. This includes both the poor and the middle class. The stress, and time-consuming nature of trying to fight their corner, takes all their time, and often erodes their health. There is no longer time, or money, to take the children on outings they would once have had, for example. Making photocopies, postage of documents, paying for copies of their records and faxes, and so on, eats into the limited resources of those who have little to spare. Some are prevented from pursuing former careers where local well-circulated, and unproven, suspicions have made them unemployable, yet there is not a shred of evidence that they are unfit.

    When social services depart and have closed the files, the family may well have turned in on itself. Sometimes they have felt they could not talk about what is happening to neighbours, friends, or even relatives. Sometimes they fear stigmatisation. Sometimes they are stigmatised. Garbled, distorted stories may have been circulated in schools, clinics, churches, etc. Contact with friends, neighbours, clubs, even relatives, may be reduced sometimes drastically. Their social capital – known to be an important factor in mortality and mortality – has been reduced.

  10. LACK OF HELP FOR THOSE IN NEED – Parents whose children have behavioural or educational difficulties now feel there is no confidential, trustworthy source of help they can go to. It was sometimes those very difficulties (then undiagnosed) which led to the interventions, but when everyone else goes home, the parents are left to cope with them, often now worse than they were before, but with nowhere they can, or dare, turn to.

    Parents who cannot avoid the system, because they have disabled children, find themselves in a continual weary battle to preserve their sanity, their integrity and their self-esteem. There is a lot of black humour in our ‘phone calls: we agree they are ‘the lucky ones’ in that their children are so seriously disabled, social services and doctors don’t want to take them (they would be too expensive and risky to keep in care, and are not seen as adoption material) but the perception is that professionals just want to exert power and control everything they do, rather than listening to parents who have found out what works and helping them with basic, simple needs.

    Because we run a totally confidential service, and never report anyone to anywhere, we are told a great deal which would be helpful to professionals involved with family care, but which they will never know because now all are required to report suspicions, so none of them is trusted.

  11. CONCEALMENT OF RAPE CONCEPTIONS – Women whose pregnancies are the result of rape are not mentioning this to anyone, though they are desperately in need of support and sensitive care, for fear of social service interference. We are supporting them as best we can, especially since we saw the disastrous effects after a woman confided in her midwife, who reported to social services in another case.
  12. CONCEALMENT OF SEXUAL RISK – Parents who have had a brush with the system withdraw from being part of the watchful community group which helps to protect all children. For example, a number of them have told us about sexual activities of quite young fellow pupils at their children’s school (which now seem surprisingly common) or grooming attempts by local paedophiles. Whereas at one time they would have acted, now they keep quiet in case any activity re-awakens interest in them or their children. They are no longer willing to try to protect other people’s children: they have pulled up the drawbridge. In view of the number of cases we have seen where women who reported paedophiles and ended up being disbelieved or vilified themselves (the assumption that these genuinely concerned mothers were making it up for their own ends, in custody battles etc) we do not blame them.
  13. CONCEALMENT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE– Women who are suffering domestic violence are continuing to conceal it for the same reason. Since we have seen cases of babies removed from such women, even after they have left their violent partners and are coping well, we are not surprised.
  14. CHILD PROTECTION AS SOCIAL CONTROL– Use of child ‘protection’ or threats thereof, are increasingly being used to control parents who are seen as unorthodox, or not completely compliant. (The social worker’s ideal ‘compliant’ mother does not seem to be one who would have the personality to insist that other people don’t smoke near her baby. Yet ‘stroppy’ mothers can be advantageous to children, protecting them when they live in difficult social circumstances. Heaven help the disabled child or one with special needs who does not have at least one stroppy parent to fight for him). The message is getting round quickly, and parents are opting out of official sources care even more, or being even more selective on what information they give, and what they conceal.
  15. TOXIC PSYCHIATRIC LABELS– Your recent report confirmed the picture we have from our cases, that psychiatrists greatly outnumber paediatricians as court experts in Family Court cases. Selected experts are invited by social workers to confirm that the parent who complained about the health visitor, or who has criticised or challenged them must have a ‘personality disorder'(not uncommon); this has now replaced the rather discredited Factitious and Induced Illness (frustratingly rare) as the method of choice. Judges do not ask the simple question: what is the baseline of this in the community, and are we to remove the children of all such parents? Where is the evidence that this child is, or has been, at risk from this parent?

    The result is that many parents and children, even if not separated and found guilty of no harm, have now acquired permanent damaging labels – widely circulated among shared records – which they, and we, suspect are likely to be a permanent source of prejudice, which do not contribute in any constructive way to their care, support, treatment or interaction with services. Since the condition is widely regarded as untreatable, there is no responsibility on the psychiatrist or the NHS to treat, but there is total freedom by lay and medical personal to disregard what the parents say.

    There is a substantial literature on the effect on professional attitudes of any label such as ‘personality disorder’, for example, and how it affects attitudes to the patient and hinders diagnosis and prevents treatment. Yet many families are acquiring these labels as a result of totally unjustified intervention in the first place. In many of our cases specific psychiatrists and psychologists seem to have been called in when social workers were unable to find evidence to prove the case they wanted. Despite our strong suggestions to clients that they should obtain copies of the psychological tests carried out on them, so that conclusions may be challenged, and their validity for different cultures assessed, so far no-one has managed to do so. (Incidentally, we are also concerned at the number of cases where these same professionals then go on to recommend to the court that the family needs exclusive private treatment by themselves at a cost of many thousands of pounds.)

    As with paediatricians and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, experts who are knowledgeable, are seen as unbiased, and will give evidence for the parent are as scarce as hen’s teeth. When a child has some physical problems, there is hope that the truth that the mother was not wrong in believing her child to be ill, will emerge eventually, through advances in medical knowledge, or even at post mortem. With psychiatric opinion of a parent’s state at the time, what hope is there of rebuttal? The MSBP label carries its own unique trail of damage: anything the mother reports to any authority is not believed – or rather is automatically DISbelieved, by doctors, teachers, the police etc, and we have seen cases of actual endangerment because of this.

Medical opinions can be wrong. Has everyone forgotten that once all the paediatricians and health visitors were ordering mothers to place their babies face down to sleep? We know a number of older mothers who did not ‘comply’ with that – they just liked to watch their babies’ sleeping faces. And maybe some of their children were saved from cot death as a result.

I could go on. But you can see why we are so concerned. Unless both professionals and the courts understand how common, and how serious, the adverse effects of child protection intervention and investigation can be, how can they balance the risks of action versus leaving well alone?

With very best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Jean Robinson
Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services

cc: Dr. Harry Burns, CMO Scotland, Dr. Tony Jewell, CMO Wales, Dr. Michael McBride CMO Northern Ireland, Dr. Gwyneth Lewis, CEMACH, Beverley Beech, Chair AIMS.

http://www.aims.org.uk/

April 3, 2010

Staffordshire Local Authority and Cafcass and their Legal Teams commit contempt of court.

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 12:55 pm

Last week i exposed how Cheshire County Council committed contempt of court while discussing a case in the public cafeteria. Whilst gathering my evidence I need against Staffordshire Local Authority. Here is the written evidence that they committed Contempt of  Court in my case. They were not held in contempt besides the matter being raised with the judge instead months later I was given a gagging order threatening me with it.

EXPOSING CORRUPTION IN THE FAMILY COURTS !

April 2, 2010

Staffordshire Social Services ignored yet another child

How my sister went from good kid to jail
by RICHARD CASTLE Last updated: 30/03/2010 18:04
AN 18-year-old girl has revealed how her big sister turned from a “good kid” to being jailed for faking a kidnapping and trashing a sheltered flat.
Speaking exclusively to the Mail, Jasmine Marshall has revealed what it was like growing up with selfharming sister Jessica.
Jasmine, who says her family will not welcome Jessica back post-sentence, admitted she longs to have “the old Jessica” back.
She said: “Jessica was a good kid. She was happy and content and would help me and mum look after the younger kids.
“But then she started secondary school, got in with the wrong crowd and started stealing from shops and her friends.
“She then started stealing from her own family, smoking and skiving school.” Jessica, 19, was spared jail in October after admitting staging the kidnapping of her 16-year-old friend and making ransom demands to her mother.
However, last month she was sentenced to 14 months after being convicted of trashing a flat at Burton’s YMCA sheltered housing complex.
When arrested, she was found with a knife and a wrap of amphetamine.
Jasmine said: “Jessica has turned to a life of crime, not because she wants to, but because she just wants help and to feel like she fits in again.
“It’s also down to the amount of drugs she was taking, which messes with her head.
“I miss having my big sister around, but, looking back on all the things she has done, the kidnap is the most hurtful thing.
“Hearing about this from my dad made me sick. I can’t believe she would do something like that – it’s the lowest of the low.” Jasmine said that when Jessica reached her early teens, she would routinely run away from home and tell social services her stepfather had beaten her.
She said: “Social services never believed her, as Jessica would contact them so often that it became a joke.
“Maybe if they had done something to help her when she needed help, she wouldn’t be the way she is today.”

http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/How-my-sister-went-from-good-kid-to-jail.htm

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.