UKCORRUPTFAMILYCOURTS

December 8, 2012

CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE !

Advertisements

December 4, 2012

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

They are now being sued never ever give up x

EXPECT ME !

May 25, 2012

Anyone with feedback on Staffordshire Social Services Family workers

My child nearly suffered injury three times by a family worker who works in care and court planning team.

1. She failed to strap child into buggy causing child to fall out .

2. She failed to remove tray from highchair and pulled child out of chair causing child extreme pain and sctaches on her legs.

3. She places hot drinks on floor where child is playing .

4. She used contact time to get her own personal photographs .

5. all she does in contact is plays SODOKU

And these idiots are meant to supervide us and they don’t know even the basics of safety and wellbeing for our children ?

October 9, 2011

The Adoption Target and its effect today

The Adoption Target and its effect today

The Sunday Express today has a story about how over a thousand children each year
continue to be wrongly adopted as a result in part of an error in calculating
the adoption target.

Christopher
Booker today in the Sunday Telegraph
looks at an additional two case
studies.

There is a lot of misinformation spread by civil servants (and parroted by ministers) about the adoption targets.

Each English Council with childrens services responsibility had a specific local target known as BV
PI 163 or PAF C23. (Those are “Best Value Performance Indicator” or “Performance
Assessment Framework”.)

This was calculated as the number of children adopted from care each year by that local authority as a percentage of the total
number of children that had been in care for at least 6 months as at the 31st of
March of the same year. (The years go from 1st April to 31st March same as the
financial years).

All local authorities had specific funding to encourage adoption and some also had financial rewards from the government for hitting
their local target.

From April 2006 the adoption target was redefined to be a permanence target which included Adoption, Residency Orders and Special
Guardianship orders.

This was scrapped from 1st April 2008.

The target, therefore, had the effect of skewing local authority decision-making up
to and including the year that ended in 31st March 2008 (which is called in the
stats 2008).

The first government lie is to pretend the target only lasted until 2006. It was redefined in 2006, but lasted until 2008.

Some local authorities (eg Merton) still have such a target. These targets, however,
are not nationally agreed.

The mathematical error is to have as the numerator (children per year) and the denominator (children). This does not give
a percentage. A percentage is a dimensionless number. This gives a dimension of
(per year).

The problem is that it was generally thought that the proportion of children being adopted was in fact relatively low when it was far
more common.

An example of this error of thinking can be seen in Ofsted’s
APA of 2008 or Alan Rushton’s paper from 2007.

Outcomes of adoption
from public care: research and practice issues
written by Alan Rushton
includes the following:

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to think that any wholesale moving of children from birth families into adoptive families is
taking place. Adoption from care concerns just a small proportion (6%) of all
looked after children in England (Department for Education and Skills, 2005) and
so remains a relatively uncommon solution to the needs of these young
people.

The problem is that the proportion is not a
“proportion”.

If we take all the children that left care aged under 5 in 2005 (4,200) we find that 2,100 were adopted. That is 50%.

Realistically as children get older they are less likely to be adopted. Those children that go
into care above 10 are often those that do so because their parents cannot cope
with their behaviour. It is, therefore, unlikely that they will be
adopted.

In 1997 2,000 under 5s left care, but only 640 did so through adoption. That is a lower percentage (because a higher proportion went home to
their parents). However, it is still 32% which is a lot more than the 6% figure
that is quoted.

The argument that was put by the government is that they were dealing with children “languishing in care”. Superficially you could say
that there was an increase in the number of children leaving care and those were
those which ceased languishing in care (again looking at those aged under 5).
However, you find in fact that the difference between the number taken into care
and that leave care still remains at about 2,000 per year (although 2010 was in
fact 2,800).

What you find, in fact, is that when the pressure for adoptions started (which was actually earlier than the adoption target) that the
numbers taken into care also increased. There are anecdotal reports of local
authorities looking for potential adoptees (called by some practitioners
adoptible commodities).

Hence what was a laudable objective was based upon a misunderstanding of the statistical picture. Furthermore there is a
continuing problem.

Practice has not substantially changed although there has been a relatively small drop of in permanence numbers (which includes a
higher reduction in adoption numbers, but still to a much higher position than
pre the adoption target).

As far as the under 5s are concerned the 2010
figure was 2,000 compared to the 2005 figure of 2,100.

Furthermore we now have the nonsense from Martin Narey who compares the historic numbers of
theoretically voluntary adoptions (in an era before better contraception,
abortion and changing social attitudes led to large numbers of babies being born
inconveniently and being adopted) to those forcibly removed from families
through the use of some corrupt experts and a legal environment which is biased
against non-institutional parties.

The Government Minister is also calling for more adoption from care without having any evidence base to identify
which children it is that need to be adopted.

There is undoubtedly a big problem with reactive attachment disorder. This appears to be caused at times by
babies being removed at a very early age and then getting insufficient personal
attention.

Whether this policy will be shifted before enough of the people who have been through it create an outcry is unclear. A lot of damage is
being done – particularly to the children – by a policy based on mathematical
errors and a lack of intellectual rigour in policy setting.

The real flaws in the decisionmaking remain hidden, however, by the secrecy in the system
and desire to protect the backs of those people who earn money from the system.

http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/

September 3, 2011

BLOWING THE WHISTLE – CHILD STEALING BY THE STATE

BLOWING THE WHISTLE – CHILD STEALING BY THE STATE

( Sunday 23rd October 2011) – Part of a 2 day event on 22/23 October 2011

Conference – Kings Hall – Glebe Street – Stoke On Trent

This is not a conference to discuss ‘issues’ and ‘concerns’ with children. and to set out a way to ‘help reform the system’ as some MPs suggest

This is a conference to expose and bring to trial those helping the State to Steal and Abuse Children. We will Name Name’s, Departments, Authorities, Organisations, Judges, MPs, Police, Psychiatrists and more. With help of those attending, we will expose the real evidence for:

MASSIVE STATE SPONSORED CHILD ABUSE AND TRAFFICKING AND COVER-UPS BY THE STATE AND ITS AGENTS

Have you experienced any of the following:

Children taken under false pretences ?

Bullying by Children’s Services, Cafcass, Local Authority ?

False verbal and documentary evidence in Court ?

Collusion behind your back by your Legal Team with the Local Authority legal team ?

MPs ignoring you and your plight ?

Child(ren) being abused in the ‘care’ of Children’s Services ?

Mental breakdown because of the attack on your family ?

Do you hold information and evidence concerning:

State trafficking of children ?

Falsifying of Family Court Documents ?

Children disappearing into the care system ?

Police deliberately blocking investigations into child abuse rings ?

Misinformation by the BBC and mainstream media ?

False help and support groups, charities and people ?

We need you and your evidence. We need you in numbers, because the State hides the evidence by isolating victims or controlling the support to whom you turn. By making out that only a few isolated families are affected the State can control national media to hide the truth.

Have you attended meetings in Westminster that ‘pat you on the head’ and achieve nothing ? – then you need to attend and be an active participant in Blowing the Whistle – Child Stealing by the State.

Please provide a 2 page summary of the basic facts of your case and indicate evidence that you hold. We will provide a pro-forma to help you do this. Active participants will be asked to provide evidence for use at the conference. Real evidence is vital to stopping the unlawful abuse of families and children.

PLEASE CONTACT THE UK COLUMN – TEL: 01752 478050 – EMAIL: childstealingbythestate@ukcolumn.org

May 29, 2011

The real scandal hidden by gags is what goes on in family courts

The real scandal hidden by gags is what goes on in family courts

The walls of secrecy surrounding snatched children are creating a one-sided justice system, argues Christopher Booker.

John Hemming MP is campaigning for greater transparency in our family protection system

John Hemming MP is campaigning for greater transparency in our family protection system Photo: PAUL GROVER
Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 28 May 2011

In all the fuss about the secrecy of our courts – after MP John Hemming named a footballer in the Commons – the point where the issue began has been almost entirely lost. Mr Hemming’s concern stems from his longstanding campaign to expose the secrecy surrounding our family courts, where one of the most shocking scandals in Britain today is flourishing, out of public view. This is the increasing number of children who are seized by social workers from loving, responsible parents, thanks to a system which often defies basic principles of justice, humanity and common sense. For example, last week, a woman was warned by a judge that if she raised her case with John Hemming or with a local MP, she would be imprisoned – contrary to one of the most ancient rights of a citizen.

It is hard to convey just how one-sided this system has become, behind its wall of secrecy. Another case I have been following concerns a devoted mother who lost her daughter, some years back, after complaining to social workers that the father was abusing their child. Astonishingly, although the couple had parted, the courts gave the father custody of the girl.

Two weeks ago, when the mother yet again told social workers that the father was abusing their daughter, they did nothing – but, independently, the police were called and the father was arrested. Social workers asked the mother to sign a document giving her child into foster care. She refused, asking for the girl to be returned to her, and was told to attend court at three o’clock last Monday to hear the council’s application for an emergency care order.

She arrived to find the council officials had not turned up, and was told to return at 10 o’clock on Tuesday. Again the officials did not show. Then the mother was told that the order had been given over the telephone the previous evening, by a magistrate at home, which appeared to break all the rules laid down for the granting of an emergency care order. This was apparently confirmed by a judge on Thursday – who nevertheless granted an order according to the proper procedures (the mother not being allowed to speak) and called them all back on Friday to hear an application for an interim care order. Thanks to the complications of the case, he then ruled that the council’s application should be heard in the High Court next month.

The mother’s only wish is to be reunited with her child – who apparently says her only wish is to be with her mother. But the implacable system, having made its error, seems determined to stand between them. Thus, hidden from public view, another unhappy family drama unfolds.

May 7, 2011

OLDHAM MUM FIGHTS THE FORCED ADOPTION OF HER PRECIOUS CHILD THROUGH THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

OLDHAM MUM FIGHTS THE FORCED ADOPTION OF HER PRECIOUS CHILD THROUGH THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHT

Mum’s care baby fight goes to Euro court

Reporter: Case will make legal history
Date online: 06 May 2011

AN OLDHAM mum, who had her child taken into care by social services, has found herself at the centre of a landmark case after refusing to give up hope.

The 23-year-old mother from Waterhead believes Oldham Council wrongly took her baby from her in June, 2009, just six months after she gave birth.

The mother, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, has already appealed the decision through UK courts without success.

Now the legal team from the Government’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been granted until August 9 to put forward their case, following her submissions to the European Court of Human Rights.

The case will be a pivotal step in legal history as it is the first of its type to been lodged to court since its inception in 1998.

The woman says the psychological effects of neglect as a child in care herself were then used as evidence for the separation from her daughter.

She said: “It’s quite scary to be in the centre of such a landmark case, I’m hoping that this could change the UK adoption system.

“First and foremost my concern is my daughter, it’s been almost two years now since I’ve seen her.

“At the start I was working alone and a lot of people would have given up, but not me.”

Her legal team argue that it has recently had a new psychological assessment carried out, giving the woman a clean bill of mental health.

This, the team argues, contradicts evidence put forward in the case of the separation and subsequent adoption of the child, now two.

The woman added: “I hope this changes things. If it does I’m not just helping myself and my daughter, I’ll been helping a lot of others.”

John Hemming, the Lib-Dem MP for Birmingham Yardley, who champions the Justice for Families group in Parliament, said: “This is a significant case and it will set a precedent. I believe some 1,000 children a year are wrongly adopted in this country and this will highlight that on a national scale.”

Gerry Lonsdale, her special adviser from Justice for Families, said: “There has rarely been a proper legal challenge to the UK adoption system, the problem is most parents don’t have the legal rights to appeal once the child has been adopted. We’ve managed to get it through to Europe — it’s a first in that sense.

“Experts tend to side with local authorities, if this private psychiatrist had been involved since the start it would have been a completely different situation.”

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/56000/mums-care-baby-fight-goes-to-euro-court

BLOG COMMENT:
SADLY THIS TYPE OF SCENARIO IS UTILISED EVERYDAY IN THE UK FAMILY COURTS.  SOCIAL SERVICES USE THE SECRECY OF THE FAMILY COURTS TO NEEDLESSLY REMOVE CHILDREN FROM THEIR LOVING, CAPABLE PARENTS FOR FORCED ADOPTION OR LONG TERM FOSTER CARE, DAMAGING THE CHILDREN, PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY.  LOCAL AUTHORITIES PAY SO CALLED INDEPENDENT EXPERT WITNESSES HUGE SUMS OF MONEY TO WRITE REPORTS BASED ON BAISED AND INACCURATE GROSSLY DISTORTED INFORMATION.  PARENTS ARE OFTEN ACCUSED OF BEING UNCO-OPERATIVE EVEN THIOUGH IT IS ONLY ONE MEMBER OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WHOM IS MORE OBSTRUCTIVE THAN THE BERLIN WALL, AND THIS CAN BE PROVEN BY THE PARENT, THOUGH THEY’RE RARELY BELIEVED BY THE COURT.  PARENTS HAVE NO CHANCE ONCE CHILDREN ARE REMOVED, LAWFULLY OR UNLAWFULLY, ONCE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS THE CHILDREN THEY INSTANTLY BECOME A TARGET FOR FORCED ADOPTION.

SADLY THE PUBLIC ARE NOT AWARE OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE UK FAMILY COURTS BECAUSE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND SO CALLED CHARITIES PORTRAY THE CHILDRENA ND UNLOVED, UNWANTED, UNCARED FOR, NEGLECTED, ABUSED, ABANDONED, YET TRAGICALLY IN 95% OF THE ASES NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. 

SOCIAL SERVICES WILL GROSSLY DISTORT FACTS TO SECURE ANY CHILD FOR ADOPTION, SO PLEASE BE AWARE THAT MICHAEL GOVE AND TIM LOUGHTON HAVE RECENTLY CALLED FOR A 50% INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN BEING ADOPTED IN THE UK, AND WHERE WILL THE SUPPLY OF THOSE CHILDREN COME FROM TO MEET THE GOVERNMENTS DEMANDS???????  ……….. YOUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN, NIECES, NEPHEWS, COUSINS, BROTHERS OR SISTERS COULD QUITE EASILY BE THE NEXT VICITM OF THE UK SOCIAL SERVICES

http://networkedblogs.com/hyrv7

May 4, 2011

Data Protection Act 1998 Section 36 Domestic purposes. Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles.

I met with a new social worker today and the subject came up about me having recorded conversations in the past.

The lady told me i wasn’t allowed to do that without consent  until i reminded her of section 36 of the data protection act whereby you do not actually have to ask for consent if you are in your own property.

What amazes me is what social workers are so scared of ?

After all if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear , and if you adhere to your codes of conduct and work in an open and honest way whats your problem ?

As for recording in SS offices etc my advice is if there have been occasions where your social workers have lied or fabricated information then do it but hide your recording equipment on your body somewhere.

SOCIAL WORKERS DO NOT POSSESS ANY POWERS TO MAKE FULL BODY SEARCHES ……… YET !!!!

Maybe the below article can demonstrate why social workers are so fearful , maybe they are scared of being exposed for lying or for being vexatious .

Believe me they can be vexatious and are so protected by the state or by using’childs best interest’ as a smokescreen for hiding their true intentions behind their decisions that I question whether some of them have psychopathic disorders .

A social worker can take a dislike to you or maybe they have got into trouble over a complaint you have made or some other exposure of their behaviour and you have had it !!!!

Whats in the best interest of the child goes out the window as the social worker is then so biased  and intent to exact her/ his revenge that the child in their eyes becomes nothing more than a useful tool in which to utilise to cause you distress in the same way as a vexatious ex partner will use a child to get back at a partner by ceasing all contact, turning the child against the absent parent etc.

There certainly does need to be an independent body to look at the conduct of some of these social workers made up partly of parents and service users like the man below who will not be blinkered by the fact that social workers are ‘ professionals ‘ and do not behave like that.

In all professions their are bad eggs look at bent police officers , crooked lawyers , etc what makes social workers any different ? On this site there is a list of social workers that have been struck off quite a long list.

IT is a very powerful role they have . If you are a victim of a vexatious social worker the odds are stacked against you.

First you have to get someone to believe that such a professional has acted vexatiously which noone will lets face it who will believe your word over a social workers ?

secondly if you make an internal complaint the local authority will back the social worker up .

thirdly if you try to take the matter to an outside agengy the process will take so long you could have ended up losing a child to adoption or foster care and had contact etc stopped . All based on the decisions and reports written by this vexatious person.

The poor child is used as a weapon to exact their twisted revenge on you.

Anyway back to the article below shows why you should record social workers and far from them saying you are not supposed to remember this judge did not have a problem with it being used as evidence !

and i say it again to social workers ‘ IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR ‘

Dictaphone saves man from prison

Secret tape recording clears him of charges brought by social services

A MAN who was cleared of all charges after secretly recording a meeting with social workers on his dictaphone, has called for an independent team to monitor social workers.

Lovel Brian Dennis was accused of affray, threat to kill, assault and criminal damage, stemming from two separate encounters with social workers from Hackney Council’s Learning and Disability department as he tried to get social services to let him take care of his brother, who has Downs Syndrome.

Dennis was accused of swearing and threatening council officials in the first encounter, while in the second he was alleged to have pushed a social worker against a wall.

However, due to evidence from his recordings and conflicting testimony from a prosecution witness, Dennis was found not guilty last month at Snaresbrook Crown Court in east London.

A relieved Dennis told The Voice: “This is the wisest £50 I’ve ever spent in my life, because if I didn’t spend this £50, as the barrister said in the court, I would’ve got three to six years. I would hope that there would be a body that can monitor social services and see that they’re conducting their duties properly.”

The problems for 46-year-old Dennis, from Hackney, started in April 2009 as he attempted to obtain responsibility for his brother Kenneth Plummer’s wellbeing, because his former foster carer could no longer be responsible for him.

Dennis had met officials during a discharge meeting at Goodmayes Hospital, as his brother had been suffering from mental illness at the time.

After the meeting, Dennis said he was accused of using abusive language and threatening a social worker. However, unbeknownst to them, Dennis had recorded the meeting on his dictaphone, which was later used in court as evidence to show he had not behaved as alleged.

After the discharge meeting, Dennis said he was banned from seeing Plummer for four months. When the ban was over, Dennis went to visit his brother but faced another accusation from the same social worker.

“…She made the allegation that I attacked her,” said Dennis, who was found not guilty of assault.

Dennis also claims that the council ‘invented’ a non-existent brother and implied he had designs on his brother’s money.

Hackney Council documents obtained by The Voice, make reference to two brothers.

A Hackney Council review on Plummer’s health when he was under his foster carer’s supervision, stated: ‘One brother, Brian, visits regularly, and Kenny enjoys these visits… However, other members visit more sporadically, which can leave Kenny feeling confused. Additional problems have developed due to the inheritance. There is concern about one brother, Lowell (sic), who is keen to manage Kenny’s money.’

Dennis later formally complained to the Ombudsman, who considers complaints of service failure and maladministration causing injustice. The Ombudsman upheld some of Dennis’ claims, ruling on January 26, that Dennis ‘was the subject of false allegations by his brother’s care manager regarding his behaviour at a meeting in a hospital.’

The Ombudsman added: ‘The foster carer has signed a statement confirming that the complainant has never asked or bothered her for his brother’s money and that she had never given the social worker the impression that he had been behaving in this manner.’

Hackney Council reportedly offered Dennis an apology and a total of £1,600 compensation, but said in a statement: ‘The Council will be making no comment due to legal reasons.’

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/content.php?show=19493

Blog at WordPress.com.