September 19, 2012

My Experiences of Lincoln Social Services

Filed under: Secret family courts — Granarchist @ 10:40 am

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

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

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

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

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



  1. Today i have watched and witnessed how unprofessional and appalling our so called social workers in this area really are, i need to make an official complaint can anyone tell me the address of the highest person i can go to with this,young girls should not be advising single young mothers when they are only a year or so older this in my mind is STUPID, when the sw tell you she doesn’t like children yet is a sw for a small child MADDNESS, what hope have any children got with idiots like this around

    Comment by shel — May 14, 2013 @ 7:35 pm | Reply

  2. Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. UN General Assembly resolution 47/133 of 18 December 1992

    The General Assembly,

    Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations and other international instruments, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world;

    Whereas under the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular its Article 55, the obligation of the Member to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

    Deeply concerned that in many countries, often in the notorious, enforced disappearances occur, in the sense that persons are detained, arrested, abducted against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different branches or levels of Government, or by organized groups or private individuals acting on behalf of or in support of direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the government, and then refuses to disclose the fate or whereabouts of those persons, or refuses to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty of the people, causing such persons are deprived of legal protection;

    Considering that enforced disappearance undermines the deepest values ​​of any society tied to respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that the systematic perpetration of such acts is a crime against humanity;

    Recalling its resolution 33/173 of 22 December 1978, which expressed concern over the reports from different parts of the world relating to enforced or involuntary disappearances, and in connection with the suffering and grief caused by the loss, as well as invited governments to prosecute law enforcement and security responsibility for the abuse of powers, which could lead to enforced or involuntary disappearances;

    Recalling also the protection granted to victims of armed conflicts by the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols to the Convention of 1977;

    Having regard in particular to the relevant articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protect the right to life, right to liberty and security of person, the right to not to be subjected to torture, and the right of everyone to recognition as a person before the law;

    Bearing in mind the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which provides that States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish acts of torture;

    In view of the code of conduct of law enforcement officials, Basic Principles on the Use of coercion and firearms by law enforcement officials, the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice relating to victims of crime and abuse of power and the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners;

    Affirming that in order to prevent enforced disappearances is necessary to ensure strict observance of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, contained in the annex to General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1998, and the Principles of effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summarily executed in execution, contained in the annex to resolution Economic and Social Council 1989/65 of 24 May 1989 and confirmed by the General Assembly in its resolution 44/162 of 15 December 1989;

    Bearing in mind that while the operations involving enforced disappearances constitute a violation of the prohibitions contained in the above-mentioned international instruments, no less important is to develop an instrument that charakteryzowałby all acts enforced disappearance of persons as a very serious offense and captures standards for prosecution of such acts and prevent them from committing;

    Announces this Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, as a set of principles for all States;
    Urges all efforts to Declaration became widely known and respected.

    Article 1
    Any act of enforced disappearance is an offense against human dignity. It is condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a grave and heinous violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed and developed in international instruments in this field.
    Any act of enforced disappearance places the person subjected to it outside the protection of the rights and causes severe suffering for them and their families. It is a violation of the rules of international law guaranteeing, inter alia, to recognize the right of every person before the law, the right to liberty and security of person and the right to not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It is also a violation or threat to the right to life.

    Article 2
    No you will not be allowed to permit or tolerate enforced disappearances. States will work on national and regional levels and in cooperation with the United Nations to contribute by all means to prevent and eradicate the phenomenon of enforced disappearances.

    Article 3
    Each Member State shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent and put an end to acts of enforced disappearance in any territory remaining under its jurisdiction.

    Article 4
    All acts of enforced disappearance shall be offenses under criminal law and will be subject to appropriate penalties, taking into account the particularly serious nature of these offenses.
    The national legislation may be adopted extenuating circumstances apply to persons who have themselves participated in causing forced disappearances, contribute to keeping victims alive or to voluntarily provide information to assist in clarifying cases of enforced disappearances.

    Article 5
    In addition to appropriate criminal sanctions, enforced disappearances, make the offender and the State or State authorities which organize, permit or tolerate such disappearances, civil responsibility, regardless of the international responsibility of the State in accordance with the principles of copper zynarodowego.

    Article 6
    No order or command of any public authority, civilian, military or other, may not be invoked as a justification for enforced disappearance. Any person receiving such an order or instruction shall have the right and duty not to comply with it.
    Each Member State shall ensure that orders and instructions ordering, authorizing or encouraging enforced disappearance cause were banned.
    The judicial training will be emphasized provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article.

    Article 7
    Any circumstances, whether a threat of war, state of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification for enforced disappearance.

    Article 8
    No State shall expel, refuse entry and will not extradite a person to another State, for which there are substantial grounds to believe that there is the danger of enforced disappearance.
    In order to determine whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all possible circumstances, including, where appropriate, the existence in the State of repeated examples of serious, habitual or mass violations of human rights.

    Article 9
    In order to prevent enforced disappearances under all circumstances, including the circumstances referred to in Article 7 of the above, it is necessary to the existence of the right to prompt and effective judicial remedy for determining the whereabouts or state of health of persons deprived of their liberty and / or identifying the bodies that ridding ordered the freedom or had already made.
    Under such a procedure, the competent national authorities shall have access to all places where persons deprived of their liberty are being held and to all of those places, as well as any place, for which there is reason to believe that such persons may be located there.
    Any other competent authority, authorized by the law of the State or under any international instrument, it can also have access to such sites.

    Article 10
    Any person deprived of liberty shall be held in an officially designated for this place and in accordance with national law, the disposal of the court immediately after his arrest.
    Accurate information on the detention of such persons and their whereabouts, including their place of residence due to the transfer, will be immediately made ​​available to members of their families, their lawyers, or any other person having a legitimate interest in the possession of such information, as opposed to the request was not expressed by persons to which that information relates.
    In any place of detention will be conducted and updated official records of the persons deprived of their liberty. In addition, each Member State shall take steps to maintain similar central registers. The information contained in these records will be available to persons mentioned in the preceding paragraph, to any judicial or other competent and independent authority and any other competent authority resolved to establish the whereabouts of the detained person who is authorized under the law of the State or any international instrument to which the data The state is a party.

    Article 11
    All persons deprived of their liberty must be released in a manner permitting reliable verification that they actually have been released, and it was released under the conditions in which their integrity is ensured and physical ability to fully exercise their rights.

    Article 12
    Each Member State shall establish in their national law the provisions indicating the officers who are authorized to decide on the deprivation of liberty, specifying the conditions under which such decisions can be made ​​and the governing penalties for officers who, without legal justification refuse to provide information on any detention.
    Similarly, each State shall ensure strict supervision, including ensuring that there is a clear hierarchy of all judicial officers responsible for making arrests and detentions, stay in custody and the transfer of their imprisonment, as well as the other officers authorized by law to use coercion and firearms.

    Article 13
    Each Member State shall ensure that anyone who has knowledge or a legitimate interest, who maintains that a person has become a victim of enforced disappearance have the right to complain to a competent and independent authority of that State, and that a complaint has been promptly and impartially in detail by the authority investigated. As soon as there is reasonable grounds to believe that enforced disappearance committed, the State shall submit the matter to the authority to conduct such a test, even if a formal complaint was lodged. No measures are taken to reduce or put a stop to such a study.
    Each Member State shall ensure that the competent authorities have the necessary powers and resources to effectively carry out the survey, including the right to compulsory attendance of witnesses and the presentation of obtaining relevant documents and to carry out immediate on-site visits to detention.
    Steps will be taken to ensure that everyone involved in the investigation, including the complainant, his advisor, witnesses and those who carried out the study, they were protected against ill-treatment, intimidation or reprisal.
    The results of this study will be made ​​available on request to all persons concerned, as long as it does not compromise who is in the course of criminal proceedings.
    Steps will be taken to ensure that any ill-treatment, intimidation or retaliation, or any form of interference in a complaint or distortion of audit procedures have been properly punished.
    Study on the principles described above should be able to be carried out as long as the fate of victims of enforced disappearance remains unclear.

    Article 14
    Any person who is alleged to have committed in the act of enforced disappearance State should be if an official investigation revealed facts justify it, given the appropriate civil authorities of that country for the purpose of criminal proceedings against him, unless it has been issued by the extradition to another Member wishing to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with relevant international agreements in force. All States should take all available legal and appropriate steps to hold accountable under their jurisdiction or control persons for whom it is believed that they are responsible for enforced disappearance.

    Article 15
    The fact that there are grounds to believe that a person involved in the acts of a very serious nature, such as those referred to in art. 4, paragraph. 1 above, regardless of the motives of the person will be taken into consideration when the competent authorities of the Member State will decide on the granting or refusal to provide Lenia asylum.

    Article 16
    People who have been alleged to have committed any of the acts referred to in article 4 paragraph. 1 above, shall be suspended from the exercise of all official duties at the time of the study referred to in article 13 above above.
    Issues such persons will be considered only by the competent in each Member State courts, and not by any other special tribunal, in particular military courts.
    No privileges, immunities or special exemptions will not be allowed during such processes, without prejudice to the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
    Persons suspected of having committed such acts shall be guaranteed fair treatment in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant agreements which are in force internationally, at all stages of criminal proceedings.

    Article 17
    Acts of enforced disappearance shall be considered as an ongoing crime so long as the perpetrators are hiding information on the fate or whereabouts of the person who was lost, and how long these facts will remain unexplained.
    In cases where the measures expire covered by Art. 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the periods of limitation relating to acts of enforced disappearance shall be suspended for as long as they are not restored.
    Limitation periods where they exist, relating to acts of enforced disappearance shall be substantial and commensurate with particularly serious nature of these offenses.

    Article 18
    People who have committed, or charged with a crime, referred to in art. 4, paragraph. 1 above, they will not benefit from any special amnesty laws or similar measures that may result in the exclusion of coverage of criminal proceedings or relief from punishment. In exercising the right of pardon will be considered a particularly serious nature of the acts of enforced disappearance.

    Article 19.
    The victims of acts of enforced disappearance and their families receive compensation and will be entitled to adequate compensation, including the means as full as possible to restore the previous state. In the case, which is the result of an act of forced disappearance of the victim’s death, will be entitled to compensation for the persons dependent on her for support.

    Article 20
    States shall prevent and combat parental child abduction cases subjected to forced disappearance and of children born during their mother’s enforced disappearance, and take efforts to the exploration and identification and return of these children to their families.
    Given the need to protect the interests of children, it is referred to in the preceding paragraph, in States where there is a system of adoption, it will be possible to verify the adoption of such children and, in particular, cancellation of any adoption, which had its origin in the forced disappearance. However, the verification of such adoption should remain in force as long as it is expressed consent of the next of kin child.
    Abduction of children of parents subjected to forced disappearance and of children born during their mother’s enforced disappearance, as well as modification or destruction of documents attesting to their true identity, will be a particularly serious crime and punished accordingly.
    To this end, where appropriate, you will include bilateral and multilateral agreements.

    Article 21
    The provisions of this Declaration, without prejudice to the provisions expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or any other international instrument, and shall not be construed as restricting or derogating from any of these provisions.

    Comment by PETER — September 20, 2012 @ 6:50 pm | Reply

  3. So sorry to hear what you have been through, the amount of victims is endless, but the more who speak out such as yourself, the sooner the public will wisen up, and the less it can be swept under the carpet. I posted you story on my son Lukey’s website, and on the Luke’s Army group on facebook, hope that is ok,
    Kind Regards,

    PS I hope it is ok that I shared your story, please feel free to post on the site or let me know if you want it removed, edited etc

    Comment by Luke's Dad — September 19, 2012 @ 3:21 pm | Reply

    • ty hun xxxxxx

      Comment by nojusticeforparents — September 21, 2012 @ 3:26 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: