UKCORRUPTFAMILYCOURTS

December 8, 2012

CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE !

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 !

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

August 1, 2011

Staffordshire Local Authority

You should know by now i will not be bullied over raising legitimate concerns over your staff . I will be compiling a press release about this .

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 25, 2011

John Hemming Debate Re: Injunctions

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Members will be aware that I have a long-time concern about secrecy in court processes, which was highlighted in the story in The Guardian today. We have no true freedom of speech when people can be jailed for complaining about their problems. This country seems to have a penchant for covering up problems that would be discussed openly in others.

Florence Bellone, a Belgian journalist, recorded an interview with Carol Hughes and Lucille O’Regan in Ireland, which was broadcast on RTBF in Belgium. A copy was placed on YouTube, but access in the UK is now blocked as a result of what YouTube calls a “government request”. What can be so frightening about that interview that people in the UK are not allowed to see it, but it can be broadcast in Belgium?

The policy of international websites varies. The Twitter account containing the names of lots of people subject to super-injunctions is still there, and will remain there for some time, yet newspapers in the UK are not allowed to refer to it by name. It is clear that in the UK people are now recognising the oppressive nature of court secrecy in this country. For instance, I wrote and released a song about this in 2008, the lyrics of which would have been in contempt of court had they not already been spoken in the House. Since then, however, things have got even worse, with the force of money being used to prevent women from complaining about their ex-boyfriends. One woman who received a super-injunction said to me:

“The process is terrifying…For the first 2 months I shook! And I shake now when talking about it to someone”.

Questions have been raised about whether I should have discussed the row between Ryan Giggs and Twitter yesterday. I am not a party to the privacy case. I have not been served with the injunction. I have not actually seen the injunction and cannot guarantee that it actually exists. I have read his name in the Sunday Herald, and on Wikipedia and Twitter. I could obviously stand on a soapbox in Scotland and say what I said in the House of Commons. I believe I could probably say it on Hyde park corner, because it is in the public domain. For me to have abused parliamentary privilege, I would have had to use it in the first instance, but I do not think that the case has been made that it would have been contempt of court outside the House.

I remain concerned, however, that the process of issuing contempt of court proceedings has been kicked off against users of Twitter. Someone should not be able to hide behind anonymity to take action against others. I am completely unsure what the legal position is in respect of naming Giles Coren. I do not think it would be contempt of court to name him outside the House, yet The Times was worried enough yesterday not to identify him—and he is one of its journalists. I will not identify the footballer whom, it is rumoured, would like to see him prosecuted for tweeting.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): I fully approve of the hon. Gentleman’s campaign to ensure that injunctions and super-injunctions do not interfere with our constituents’ ability to contact us and speak to us about issues. However, will he explain to the House why he thinks he is judge and jury on whether certain people under court order should be named in this place? Why does he feel he has the right above anybody else? It seems very strange to use privilege in such a way.

John Hemming: I explained that those details were already in the public domain and accessible in Forbes Magazine, the Sunday Herald and many other places, so I do not think it would have been contempt of court outside the House. However, I accept the Speaker’s ruling on this issue.

I refer hon. Members to a story in The Guardian today relating to another injunction. I shall read out the first paragraph:

“A wealthy British financier is seeking to have his sister-in-law secretly jailed in a libel case, in the latest escalation of the controversy over superinjunctions and the internet, the Guardian can disclose.”

What we have here is true secret justice: somebody is being prosecuted in secret; they cannot be identified; and the person prosecuting them cannot be identified. As a rule, the Attorney-General does not prosecute civil cases, which the privacy cases are; one of the parties usually prosecutes.

John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): That has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman did yesterday.

John Hemming: Actually, it has everything to do with what I did yesterday, because Giles Coren was subject to similar contempt proceedings. There is a great danger that a secret form of jurisprudence will develop that aims to jail people in secret and keep their identities out of the public domain for relatively trivial issues.

The law of confidentiality and privacy, as being developed by the courts, seems to be in opposition to the views of Parliament about whistleblowing. That is an important point. A number of the court orders in place act to prevent people from reporting issues, whether to the police, the General Medical Council, coastguards or whomever. The rule of law is undermined by the court orders preventing that information from being given. That is another important issue.

Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): Will my hon. Friend confirm that judges have also issued court orders naming Members of Parliament as people who cannot be spoken to?

John Hemming: Indeed. The issues of freedom of speech are not just about what goes in the newspapers; they are also about who communicates with whom and how tightly controlled things are. Some of the court orders issued prevent people from complaining to friends about what has been done to them; some prevent them from complaining to Members of Parliament; and others prevent them from going to the police with information. A dangerous system is developing. It is wrong to think that there is a difference between the ZAM case reported in The Guardian today and that of Giles Coren, because he could have faced exactly the same process.

John Cryer: What about Giggs?

John Hemming: The point I was making about Giggs was that his name was in the public domain already, so it would not have been contempt of court to name him outside the House. That is quite straightforward, and it does not, therefore, involve the use of privilege.

However, there is an argument about privilege where the legal position is uncertain, as it can be at times. We do not want to be unable to debate things because working out whether we can talk about them is so complex. Privilege is important and it needs to be used responsibly—there is no question about that—but my argument is straightforward. To have abused privilege, I would have to have used the name in the first instance, yet no one has evidenced to me the basis on which it would have been contempt of court for me to say outside the House what I said yesterday in it, and if it was not contempt of court outside, it cannot be an abuse of privilege within—

Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con): Why did you not say it outside then?

John Hemming: Because it would not have been reported.

Anyway, the accountability of judicial processes depends not only on there being a public judgment, but on people having the ability externally to challenge the evidence that the courts are using. The problem with secrecy is that this all breaks down. Indeed, the report in The Guardian today about the secret committal of the sister-in-law is an example of exactly that situation, where there is no possibility of checking externally the evidence for whether the assumptions are correct. There are great questions about the reliability of much of the expert evidence provided in the family courts. If we cannot rely on the expert evidence, we will have difficulty relying on the conclusions.

There are many, many problems, and I will obviously be submitting a detailed report to the Joint Committee on the difficulties with the various injunctions. We also have a difficult day today, so I will not use up all my time. The issue of secret jailing is one that we cannot drop. Obviously we cannot do much more about it over the recess, but we cannot allow a process to continue whereby attempts are made to commit more and more people in secret proceedings. This all arises from the objective of protecting relatively trivial secrets, but it is not even close to open justice. The balancing act has completely failed when we are trying to balance somebody’s liberty on one side against something relatively trivial on the other.

posted by john

http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/

May 24, 2011

John Hemming Strikes Again and shows what a farce these injunctions are.

I do have to applaud Mr Hemming for naming the footballer trying to silence at least 75,000 people who have named a footballer ( name rhymes with Bryan Spriggs ) using parliamentary privalege .

Some people though will not be aware of why Mr Hemming has an interest in these injunctions.

Injunctions are being dished out on a daily basis through our secret family courts and people are being secretly imprisoned for breaking them.

John quite rightly wants an end to these injunctions that prevent people from speaking out about injustice and protects noone other than the judiciary , social workers and so called expert witnesses.

These injunctions do not protect children as many children end up having to endure a life in a failed care system or being forcibly adopted because noone has been able to speak to anyone about any injustice that may have happened during the secret family court proceedings.

Hence rather than serve to protect children an injunction can  actively promotes the abuse of children by allowing these children to be ‘ farmed out ‘ to the care system based on lies and questionable evidence with no one being able to question those procedures.

I do hope this ‘ civil disobedience ‘ continues and that more MPs start to question who these injunctions are ACTUALLY protecting .

QUENTIN LETTS: Good man John Hemming brought an end to the farce

By QUENTIN LETTS

Last updated at 8:32 AM on 24th May 2011

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=146202712090395&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D2%23cb%3Df2a86f6288%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%252Ff8f8f61f4%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&colorscheme=light&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fdebate%2Farticle-1390215%2FRyan-Giggs-super-injunction-John-Hemming-brought-end-farce.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_GB&node_type=link&ref=LikeButtonTop&sdk=joey&show_faces=false&width=90

Maginot Line time. Our rulers huff and puff and tell us plebeians we must not even think about the identities of ‘bonking’ injunctors. We should not worry our heads with such matters. Move on, little people. Nothing for you to see here.

Then John Hemming (Lib Dem, Birmingham Yardley) rises in the Commons and with a blurt names Ryan Giggs (Manchester United association football player, m’lud) as one of those press-gaggers. Gasps. Tuts. Calls of ‘disgrace!’ from the Labour side.

Why on earth should socialist Labour rush to protect a multi-millionaire alleged womaniser? Maybe it’s because Mr Giggs is a left winger.

John Hemming names Ryan Giggs during a discussion on injunctions in the Houses of CommonsMoment of truth: John Hemming names Ryan Giggs during a discussion on injunctions in the Houses of Commons

Agent Hemming, good man, did his deed during a Commons Statement about the injunctions farce. Everyone was mincing around the identity of the footballer, even though it was all over the internet, a Scottish newspaper and assorted foreign organs (if ‘organ’ be the word).

The pomposity of the British Parliament at such moments knows few bounds. They are sent here by the populace yet they talk like semi-strangled gobblers from another era. Is it any wonder non-voters think politics is not for them?

Attorney General Dominic Grieve had spoken at length in a dry, lawyerly way. Mr Grieve gives every impression that he has just stepped from one of Mr Disraeli’s novels. His voice creaked, dust in its hinges. His words may have been scratched down by quill pen.

At one point he talked about ‘the blog-eau-sphe-ar’. Even his fellow pooh-bahs laughed at him for that. For heaven’s sake, matey, you’re a politician, not an extra from Downton Abbey.

Attorney Grieve left the distinct impression, by the by, that he regarded the Press and internet users as impertinent, malign hyenas. How dare they defy the legal establishment? Lord Prescott (gooser of Tracey) sat up in the peers’ gallery, grunting assent like an old porker.

On it went, the House stroking its big belly, lots of them laying into the Press Complaints Commission and, with greater justification, deploring newspapers’ misdeeds on phone-hacking.

Then Mr Hemming had his moment. ‘Mr Speaker,’ he said casually, ‘with about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs it is obviously impractical to imprison them all.’ The House took a moment to respond and Mr Hemming was ploughing further into controversy, saying that a newspaper writer, Giles Coren, was facing the threat of imprisonment.

At this point Speaker Bercow intervened, stopping Mr Hemming mid-flow and telling him that he should not flout the protocols of injunction law ‘for whatever purpose’. Translation: we all know you’re just doing this because you’re an appalling self-publicist, Hemming.

Chris Bryant (Lab, Rhondda) was outraged by Mr Hemming’s sally. Could this be the same Mr Bryant who laid into Prince Andrew in the Commons recently in an equally blatant bid for media coverage? It sure could be, folks. Others on the Opposition benches, and one or two on the Tory side, were disgusted by Mr Hemming. Maybe there was an element of envy – a case of ‘grrr, wish I’d said it first’.

The Sunday Herald newspaper in Edinburgh printed a barely disguised picture of Ryan Giggs on its front coverBreaking ranks: The Sunday Herald newspaper in Edinburgh printed a barely disguised picture of Ryan Giggs on its front cover

Mr Hemming, mission accomplished, sat contentedly in his place, unfazed by his fellow Members’ outburst of sanctimony. In the blink of an eye the Establishment had been confounded, the elite bypassed.

For years libel lawyers have held swanky sway over the public prints. They have menaced and manipulated and, in the process, charged their clients millions of pounds.

Now, thanks to Twitter and others, including Mr Hemming, their edifice has been left looking like one of those south-coast medieval castles which were once on the coast but are now stranded inland.

Earlier in the day I attended a gruesome event at the Royal Festival Hall where Ed Miliband tried, and failed, to connect with Labour activists. Few were there. The media turnout was particularly slim. Poor Mr Miliband seems to be attracting little interest at present.

Perhaps he should hire Messrs Schillings, legal advisers to Mr Giggs. From what one can gather, they are geniuses at attracting attention for their clients.

Speaker John Bercow immediately leapt out of his seat and rebuked Mr Hemming in an effort to protect the Manchester United player's identitySpeaker John Bercow immediately leapt out of his seat and rebuked Mr Hemming in an effort to protect the Manchester United player’s identity

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1390215/Ryan-Giggs-super-injunction-John-Hemming-brought-end-farce.html#ixzz1NH7wTLuX

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

My friend has blogged this below asking the question below …. maybe someone would like to ask a certain Cannock social worker how she felt when i accessed her very public profile ….. I’ll tell you she said she felt stalked and harrassed which is exactly how i felt when Andrew Jenkinson who was also a Cannock social worker was following me around on the internet visiting forums id posted in even using my youtube videos in court which the judge watched despite the fact they had nothing to do with my children ! KARMA’S A BITCH CANNOCK SS and maybe next time Sarah Peace authorizes her staff to do this to parents she will be mindful of how her staff feel when it is done to them .

SOCIAL WORKERS ADMIT TO WATCHING PARENTS ONLINE ACTIVITIES, YET HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF PARENTS INTERCEPTED THEIR FACEBOOK/TWITTER ACCOUNTS???

use of facebook to investigate parents

Bookmark and Share Skip to the end
 rated by 0 users

 This post has 25 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 25 Contributor

 romeo2001Posted: 3 Oct 2010 1:26 PM

is it unethical or common sense to search for a parents facebook and peruse if not private ? (and therefore open to the general public)

there is huge amount of information that can be found out about peoples behaviour via their facebook pages – eg whetehr they are substance misusing – often what times of tge day its are taking place and general relationship dynamics etc  – am not yet practising so am keen to see whethr this is a tool that is used

note that im not saying it should be used as evidence – just another form of info gathering

Top 25 Contributor
Female

 redana replied on4 Oct 2010 9:13 PM

I think it’s common sense to look at all the information that’s ‘out there’ …and SW’s should also beware as employers are increasingly using FB and the like as a tool to screen the lifestyle of potental employees.

I have cited inappropriate info via FB posted by a  parent re her child, as evidence of emotional abuse. But, I think you are right to be cautious about what can be used as evidence-I don’t think the example you have mentioned re substance misuse would be able to be evidenced in this way.

I think it is also a good tool for SW’s to trace information about parents where there is otherwise very little.

Top 200 Contributor

 gear replied on4 Oct 2010 10:46 PM

I had a huge issue with Facebook on a set of Care Proceedings – it did not however concern parents but foster carers. Basically a child’s parent googled the foster parents whom they had met at an initial placement meeting. The foster carer didn’t adopt any privacy settings on her page and had pictures of the children on her page detailing why they were in  her care, also using inappropriate language to describe the children such as ‘my little babies’ and ‘can you imagine abusing these little angels’. The mother retaliated by setting up a Facebook group referring to all foster carers as ‘child stealers’. We had to move the children to another placement and I did complain to family placement about the foster carers actions, in turn the foster carer reported the mother to the Police for harrassment and threatening behaviours . The foster carer also complained about her family placement department for never advising her on the issues surrounding social networking sites. The whole thing was a total mess and the children were extremely confused by everything that happened.

In terms of using Facebook for monitoring, I am aware that some of my colleagues have however I have not. I am aware that the Police frequently use this as a source of intelligence however I feel that caution should be excercised, it is extremely instrusive and often in the case of some of the children on my caseload – it how they wish to be viewed i.e. bravado. I personally will stick to non web based monitoring.

Top 10 Contributor

‘Pre-crime’ Comes to Children’s Services

Recorded Future
Introducing the world’s first
Temporal Analytics Engine
A new predictive analysis tool that allows you to visualize the future, past or present.

Top 25 Contributor

Question to myself… “how would you feel if someone did this to you???”

Well I know I would be extremelly angry if I found out, in fact to a point where I would most definitely seek legal advice with an aim to take action. However, I would obviously have to make sure my privacy settings are tight (which they are). I can see why intelligence/secret services may use this, and it has proved essential in some cases (particularly in relation to anti-terrorism) but as a student I am hoping (NAIVITY ALERT!) social work isn’t so investigative.

I personally think it is quite invasive and as I said I would be mortified if I found out someone had done that to me. But at the same time it is a good tool. I am guessing tho (bar the odd mistake) talented workers won’t need to go to these levels as either a good raport with parents/good social work skills will mean you could pick up evidence in other ways, without resporting to tactics used by services whose primary function is to investigate. But whether or not social workers should use it to confirm a hunch about something… again, i’m not sure. I question whether doing things like this is quite deceitful in some ways. Sure it could make life easier.

Anyway, ramble over. I know facebook is causing all sorts of issues amongst social work (such as above, children contacting parents they shouldnt be etc) but i dont think we need to start snooping. Im interested to see where this discussion goes, as it is quite a though provoking thread. :)

Top 10 Contributor

Social Worker contact and family visits, don’t forget:

Check fridge for adequate amounts of food
Check pets healthy and well feed
Check all family and friends latest Facebook and Twitter entries
Check wider family and environment
and
Take photographs throughout the home

“Other professionals, including school staff, health visitors, doctors and others [Police] involved with your family will be monitoring the safety and welfare of (insert names of children) and reporting any concerns.”

4722.procedure CPP visits and letter.doc

 Andy_Pandy:

Question to myself… “how would you feel if someone did this to you???”

Well I know I would be extremelly angry if I found out, in fact to a point where I would most definitely seek legal advice with an aim to take action. However, I would obviously have to make sure my privacy settings are tight (which they are). I can see why intelligence/secret services may use this, and it has proved essential in some cases (particularly in relation to anti-terrorism) but as a student I am hoping (NAIVITY ALERT!) social work isn’t so investigative.

I personally think it is quite invasive and as I said I would be mortified if I found out someone had done that to me. But at the same time it is a good tool. I am guessing tho (bar the odd mistake) talented workers won’t need to go to these levels as either a good raport with parents/good social work skills will mean you could pick up evidence in other ways, without resporting to tactics used by services whose primary function is to investigate. But whether or not social workers should use it to confirm a hunch about something… again, i’m not sure. I question whether doing things like this is quite deceitful in some ways. Sure it could make life easier.

Anyway, ramble over. I know facebook is causing all sorts of issues amongst social work (such as above, children contacting parents they shouldnt be etc) but i dont think we need to start snooping. Im interested to see where this discussion goes, as it is quite a though provoking thread. :)

Top 50 Contributor

I suppose if there was a S.47 investigation then it would be remiss of the social worker not to make investigations using facebook and the like.   But I certainly would not want anyway judging me by what I placed on my facebook page.    It all comes back to us being aware of how to make ourselves private.   But even then, large companies spend thousands+ on tracking their company image / profile through what is being said about them on social networking sites, its very big business logging everything we say and type.

So beware everyone – big brother (in some form) is watching you.

Top 75 Contributor

 hound replied on5 Oct 2010 12:54 AM

Andy, sorry, you’ve lost me on this one! You say you would be angry/mortified/seek legal advice if someone did this to you, but what activity are you thinking of when you say “did this to you”?  I know fb privacy setting can be a bit complex, but you do have a choice of what information you want to remain public.  And then you have to remember that you have chosen to put that into the public domain.  Why would someone looking at something you have chosen to put into the public domain mortify you? General rule: if you care about who knows certain things then don’t put them into the public domain.  I can understand that it would be different if someone is applying special legal powers to obtain information which is not in the public domain but I don’t think that that is what is being discussed here.

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 1:45 AM

New Facebook Privacy Complaint Filed with Trade Commission

Today, EPIC and 14 privacy and consumer protection organizations filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, charging that Facebook has engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of consumer protection law. The complaint states that changes to user profile information and the disclosure of user data to third parties without consent “violate user expectations, diminish user privacy, and contradict Facebook’s own representations.” The complaint also cites widespread opposition from Facebook users, Senators, bloggers, and news organizations. In a letter to Congress, EPIC urged the Senate and House Committees with jurisdiction over the FTC to monitor closely the Commission’s investigation. The letter noted the FTC’s failure to act on several pending consumer privacy complaints.

http://epic.org/2010/05/new-facebook-privacy-complaint.html

“The following business practices are unfair and deceptive under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act: Facebook disclosed users’ personal information to Microsoft, Yelp, and Pandora without first obtaining users’ consent; Facebook disclosed users’ information—including details concerning employment history,beducation, location, hometown, film preferences, music preferences, and reading preferences—to which users previously restricted access; and Facebook disclosed information to the public even when users elect to make that information available to friends only.”

http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/EPIC_FTC_FB_Complaint.pdf

http://www.reputationdefender.com

http://deletefacebook.com

http://www.reclaimprivacy.org

Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents


Google CEO: Secrets Are for Filthy People
Eric Schmidt suggests you alter your scandalous behavior before you complain about his company invading your privacy.

Secrets: on the ethics of concealment and revelation
Sissela Bok – 1989 – 332 pages – Snippet view
Shows how the ethical issues raised by secrets and secrecy in our careers or private lives take us to the heart of the critical questions of private and public morality.
http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=sissela+bok&oq=siss

Top 150 Contributor

 copperbird replied on5 Oct 2010 4:41 AM

Guide on ways to manage your privacy on facebook. Note that even if you have all of your own privacy settings turned on, you cannot control what your friends or family might choose to post, and you cannot control whether or not they use the privacy settings.

Facebook has relied heavily on naive users disregarding their own personal privacy as part of its engine for growth. (I like to think that this is because Mark Zuckerberg is using it as a base for his own weird philosophy rather than due to active malice.)

It’s a deeply worrying trend, but ultimately whose responsibility is it if a person chooses to leave personal information in a public area? Anyone remember the MI5 guy whose wife posted a picture of her kids on her public facebook page? It has become common practice for employers to check facebook/ twitter of potential employees, and once people are actually physically at risk I’m not sure I see a good reason to ignore it. Just as always, bear in mind that things you read on the internet might not be true.

Top 25 Contributor
Female

 redana replied on5 Oct 2010 10:44 AM

 Andy_Pandy:

Question to myself… “how would you feel if someone did this to you???”

Well I know I would be extremelly angry if I found out, in fact to a point where I would most definitely seek legal advice with an aim to take action. However, I would obviously have to make sure my privacy settings are tight (which they are). I can see why intelligence/secret services may use this, and it has proved essential in some cases (particularly in relation to anti-terrorism) but as a student I am hoping (NAIVITY ALERT!) social work isn’t so investigative.

I personally think it is quite invasive and as I said I would be mortified if I found out someone had done that to me. But at the same time it is a good tool. I am guessing tho (bar the odd mistake) talented workers won’t need to go to these levels as either a good raport with parents/good social work skills will mean you could pick up evidence in other ways, without resporting to tactics used by services whose primary function is to investigate. But whether or not social workers should use it to confirm a hunch about something… again, i’m not sure. I question whether doing things like this is quite deceitful in some ways. Sure it could make life easier.

Anyway, ramble over. I know facebook is causing all sorts of issues amongst social work (such as above, children contacting parents they shouldnt be etc) but i dont think we need to start snooping. Im interested to see where this discussion goes, as it is quite a though provoking thread. :)

Andy_Pandy,- children’s SW requires workers to be invasive- when you are gathering evidence for care proceedings-it is an investigative role-you are investigating child abuse and neglect. Deceitful? No different to sharing information other agencies have; quite often people think this will not get back to the SW- and become very angry that health visitors, nurseries, schools, etc have ‘betrayed them’.

No different to noting that the child’s matresses had no covers on and the child was grubby and smelly. No different to turning up unannounced to get a true picture of what is happening in the family. No different to hiring a private detective to get evidence that sexually risky person is living there-yes, that happens…..

I personally do not search out parents, other than, maybe to trace information for a child’s records about a parent-I believe the child has a right to know as much as they can in the future about absent parents.

However, I have had a child, as mentioned, where her mother posted very abusive messages about her and crowed about the child’s abuse- I was alerted to this by the child- who was being ‘protected’ in foster care from emotional abuse and neglect-but mother chose this forum to continue to emotionally abuse her. Evidence or not? Should we ignore this, thus respecting the mother’s privacy? (as there were privacy settings)

I think it is deceitful to pretend the SW role is not commonly an investigative one and I have always been clear about my role with parents.

Top 25 Contributor

errr i may be missing something but whats wrong with referring to children as “my little babies”??

the replies on the thread are interesting – does the policy vary from office to office ? or are you free to do it as is – i know the LA didnt allow facbook on their IT network during working hours

very interesting about the hiring of detectives – as it should be really

Top 25 Contributor
Female

 redana replied on5 Oct 2010 12:00 PM

I think I would be very concerned as a SW if a foster carer referred to children that they are ‘looking after for the local authority’ as “my little babies”. It suggests to me that the carer is quite unboundaried (which is already evidenced by the posting of pictures on FB). they are not their children and it’s very disrespectful to the parents, whose rights need to be respected even though they have abused or neglected their children. In my humble opinion, the language used implies ownership of the children. foster carers have a duty to build good relationships with parents.

Top 25 Contributor
 hound:

Andy, sorry, you’ve lost me on this one! You say you would be angry/mortified/seek legal advice if someone did this to you, but what activity are you thinking of when you say “did this to you”?  I know fb privacy setting can be a bit complex, but you do have a choice of what information you want to remain public.  And then you have to remember that you have chosen to put that into the public domain.  Why would someone looking at something you have chosen to put into the public domain mortify you? General rule: if you care about who knows certain things then don’t put them into the public domain.  I can understand that it would be different if someone is applying special legal powers to obtain information which is not in the public domain but I don’t think that that is what is being discussed here.

My privacy settings are all sorted… but everytime facebook upgrades or whatever, they all go back to normal, so make my information (and profile) public again. I use it for social networking, networking amongst people I choose to, and therefore I would be mad if anyone I didn’t know started looking through my information on there to try and catch me out on something. So although I may put my privacy setting on as high as I can, it doesn’t mean that when facebook changes in anyway that they wont go back to normal. If someone went through my profile for any reason, and I didn’t know them, I wouldn’t be impressed. But then that could just be me, as I am an overly private person (believe it or not). I think it also depends as to what people consider ‘public domain’, yes it’s on the internet, but I don’t consider my profile to be for the public to view as and when they like, I consider it for those people who I accept as a ‘friend’. I would just personally be angry if someone did this to me. But just reading Harrow CP thing from above…

Some people i’m sure find it alright, and if I had to do it then I guess I would. But following closely to read more about this as people comment…

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 12:36 PM

Hello, this is one of my clients

Hello I am here to see my Social Worker

Some of my cases are quite complex

etc

those posting photos of children requires the consent of parents and even when parents post photos, if done so within the Public domain if may attract the attention of PC plod.

In terms of Super Size Big Brother it is of interest that the Contact PointCyclops has been curtailed and the Vetting and Barring Scheme was suspended and is under review and thankfully the UK ID Card Database State has been rolled back and this will at least stymie the ‘cradle-to-grave surveillance’ intentions.

Of course Social Workers are acting continually as investigators and to consider otherwise is highly problematic and the issues of care andcontrol should always be made explicit, which could be done by creating a new professional and protected job titles like Social Police or even Morality Police.

Top 10 Contributor
 romeo2001:

is it unethical or common sense to search for a parents facebook and peruse if not private ? (and therefore open to the general public)

there is huge amount of information that can be found out about peoples behaviour via their facebook pages – eg whetehr they are substance misusing – often what times of tge day its are taking place and general relationship dynamics etc  – am not yet practising so am keen to see whethr this is a tool that is used

note that im not saying it should be used as evidence – just another form of info gathering

you are assuming that anything a person puts on facebook is fact. 99% of the stuff i put on facebook between my mates and girlfriends is utter nonsense and drunk rambling. links to various nonsense etc etc. facebook for me is just a carry on so, no, you could not take facebook as anything resembling genuine.

Top 25 Contributor
 PatHew:

Hello, this is one of my clients

Hello I am here to see my Social Worker

Some of my cases are quite complex

etc

those posting photos of children requires the consent of parents and even when parents post photos, if done so within the Public domain if may attract the attention of PC plod.

In terms of Super Size Big Brother it is of interest that the Contact Point Cyclops has been curtailed and the Vetting and Barring Scheme was suspended and is under review and thankfully the UK ID Card Database State has been rolled back and this will at least stymie the ‘cradle-to-grave surveillance’ intentions.

Of course Social Workers are acting continually as investigators and to consider otherwise is highly problematic and the issues of care and control should always be made explicit, which could be done by creating a new professional and protected job titles like Social Police or even  Morality Police.

haha like it pat – tho i actually think  we’d have a better standing in society if there was a “re-branding”

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 4:19 PM

Defendant STEELCASE moves this Court for an Order granting said Defendant access to Plaintiff’s current and historical Facebook and MySpace pages and accounts, including all deleted pages and related information upon the grounds that Plaintiff has placed certain information on these social networking sites which are believed to be inconsistent with her claims in this action concerning the extent and nature of her injuries, especially her claims for loss of enjoyment of life.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2010/2010_20388.htm

Facebook Page? Or Exhibit A in Court?

Top 50 Contributor

 Bulldog Allan replied on5 Oct 2010 5:17 PM

 PatHew:

Hello, this is one of my clients

Hello I am here to see my Social Worker

Some of my cases are quite complex

etc

those posting photos of children requires the consent of parents and even when parents post photos, if done so within the Public domain if may attract the attention of PC plod.

In terms of Super Size Big Brother it is of interest that the Contact Point Cyclops has been curtailed and the Vetting and Barring Scheme was suspended and is under review and thankfully the UK ID Card Database State has been rolled back and this will at least stymie the ‘cradle-to-grave surveillance’ intentions.

Of course Social Workers are acting continually as investigators and to consider otherwise is highly problematic and the issues of care and control should always be made explicit, which could be done by creating a new professional and protected job titles like Social Police or even  Morality Police.

On the above points I do definately agree with you.     ‘cradle-to-grave surveillance’ is something that realy does concern me and I guess we have to all understand that whatever we put in the public domain, through websites, forums, blogs, social networking etc can all be accessed by most and if you pay some money you can find out even more about people.

Top 200 Contributor

 gear replied on5 Oct 2010 7:28 PM

Thanks Redana, my point exactly – the children are in the care of the ‘Local Authority’ and absolutely nobody has the right to refer to them as their own children. It is my personal belief that foster carers should never post any information about children in their care on any social networking site.

In response to Romeo – my council does not permit any use of social networking sites however specific permission is given in certain circumstances, as in the case I have detailed above- I did personally see the posts by the foster carer.

Top 150 Contributor

tbh anyone with a smartphone could access social networking from work regardless of any IT restrictions (usual caution applies about deliberately flouting the company handbook etc.)

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 8:12 PM

And if you are sacked and make a tribunal or discrimination claim, your telephone records will be called by the employer’s side. And if you post to a Public blog or similar then the evidence will be there for all to see. Then again many employers give free unofficial reign to staff to create a positive work space, but this then allows them to quote IT breaches as and when needed.

 copperbird:

tbh anyone with a smartphone could access social networking from work regardless of any IT restrictions (usual caution applies about deliberately flouting the company handbook etc.)

Top 10 Contributor
Female

 cb replied on6 Oct 2010 7:32 AM

Just as an aside and not completely relevant point, as a foster carer, I have made considerable efforts to refrain from mentioning my foster child on updates – that hasn’t stopped friends of mine commenting on my status updates and asking after her – not for any nefarious reasons, but on the understanding that when a child lives with us for a year, of course, they will show an interest in her and how she is getting on.

Of course, my profile is ‘private’ to the max levels but – and this is a bit but – foster carers MUST be made aware of these issues and social workers must be aware of these issues.

The ONLY guidance we had from the local authority about facebook was telling us that we could allow children over 12 to create pages (we’d actually told our foster child she would have to wait until she was 13 as that was the guidance on Facebook and to create a page at 12 would mean that she would have to tell lies about her age to register!). Of course, once she saw this letter from the local authority, she wanted a page as the local authority said it was ‘ok’.

But seriously, that is the only input that they have had. I think there needs to be a lot more training about social networks as quickly children are becoming more au fait with the ways and means to manage their own information and contacts than their carers.

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on7 Oct 2010 3:55 PM

Surveillance and Child Protection: De-mystifying the Trojan Horse. 
Surveillance
and Society 7(3/4): 304-324. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org

Evil
http://www.tomscott.com/evil/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWSy8FqKwQc

How evil is Facebook?
Think of it as your life going down the drain while you spend hours casuallly stalking other people’s lives
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/29/how-evil-is-facebook

Uploads from iPhones using the Facebook app will push all your contacts onto Facebook’s servers – where they’ll be matched against any and everyone. Worried at all?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/oct/06/facebook-privacy-phone-numbers-upload

100m Facebook users collected and published
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10796584

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on7 Oct 2010 4:10 PM

 cb:

. I think there needs to be a lot more training about social networks as quickly children are becoming more au fait with the ways and means to manage their own information and contacts than their carers.

PS:

Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
http://www.ceop.police.uk/

Children’s Online Privacy Protection
http://www.coppa.org/

Top 100 Contributor

 Tink63 replied on7 Oct 2010 5:44 PM

Hi I have not actually used facebook to look up families myself, however other family members and families often share information such as information on facebook with me, on one occasion this was very useful as a mother had a new partner it was alleged on facebook, who was in fact a sex offender, so therefore don’t think we can always ignore information given to us in this way!! Tink

Page 1 of 1 (26 items) | RSS

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

May 1, 2011

IS THE FORCED ADOPTION OF A CHILD ABUSIVE IN ITSELF ?

Adopted Child Syndrome (ACS)

IT’S HISTORY & RELEVANCE TODAY

Adoption secrecy is credited with fueling several types of negative outcome issues for adoptees, including the statistical possibility that siblings separated by adoption, unaware of their biological relationship, have engaged in incestuous relationships (see the story of Joel Domingues at AdoptedPrisoners.com , under GEORGIA, and “Keeping it in the Family: Incest and Inbreeding,” at http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/3436 . But it’s the apparently higher probability of criminal and sociopathic behaviors by adoptees that has been the most documented — and most disputed by pro-adoption groups and supporters of “tough on crime” legislation.

Reuben Pannor, former Director and now Consultant to California’s Vista del Mar residential center for emotionally disturbed children is quoted by Los Angeles Times writer Beverly Beyette: “I started working in adoption at Vista del Mar 30 years ago…There, I was surprised to note that every 3rd child had been adopted and had problems.” The Adopted Prisoner and Adopted Killer pages, as well as the free download for the e-book, Chosen Children, not only documents the existence of the link between adoption and emotionally disturbed to sociopathic behaviors, but also explains WHY.





That adoptees are prone to specific behaviors referred to as “Adopted Child Syndrome,” says famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, is just another “abuse excuse” to avoid reponsibility for their actions, including felony crimes. But this is the same Alan Dershowitz who, in his op-ed piece in the LA Times,suggested using “Torture Warrants” — court ordered to control what Dershowitz calls the “inevitable” use of torture by U.S. law enforcement in the “war on terrorism.” He claims torture is “constitutional,” regardless that it is also detrimental to a democratic society. He rationalizes that its sanctioning by warrant would make it more accountable and transparent. “If we are to have torture,” he argues, “it should be authorized by the law.” Notwithstanding that falsification of sealed birth records, and adoption itself, have never been deemed “constitutional” or democratic, Dershowitz seems to be missing the point of our profiling people who are victims of adoption abuse, not as an “excuse,” but as a “reason” for the prevalance of sociopathology and violent crime among those whose lives were forever manipulated by adoption politics and lawyers “in their best interests.”

In 1953, Jean Paton, MA, MSW, a social worker and adoptee, conducted the first studies on families involved in sealed adoptions under the name “The Life History Center,” in Philadelphia. In the June 1955 edition of the Western Journal of Surgery, Paton described “passive, hostile and dependent behaviors” in an adopted boy–behaviors she later defined and which would later be more widely known as “Adopted Child Syndrome.” Her studies revealed confused, damaged children and families due to this secrecy based on ever-changing social work theory and political expediency. Subsequently, terminology such as “slave psychology” was applied to the adoptee “because he feels he must submit to the will of his adopters as a reflection of what they have done for him.”

In 1978, Dr. David Kirschner coined the term “Adopted Child Syndrome” as underlying “Dissociative Disorder,” in his paper, “Son of Sam and the Adopted Child Syndrome,” Adelphi Society for Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy Newsletter, 1978)… and in the same year, the Indian Child Welfare Act (Public Law 95-608) was amended to provide adult adoptees of Native American heritage “different rights” than non-Indian adoptees.

In the 1980s, adoptees who exhibited “Attachment Disorder” were further categorized as a “sub-set spectrum” of adoptees who, to varying degrees, exhibit eight specific antisocial Adopted Child Syndrome (ACS) behaviors — according to noted psychologists, Kirschner, Sorosky, Schecter, Carlson, Simmons, Work, Goodman, Silverstein, Mandell, Menlove, Simon, Senturia, Offord, Aponti, Cross and others. However the “spectrum” is never defined, so it is argued that all adoptees are at risk due to the complexities of adoptees’ dual identities and secret pasts. Although Brazelton referred to ACS as “malarkey” in the press, psychiatrist David Cooke said “Adopted Child Syndrome is simply a new name for a phenomenon that has been observed since the 1950’s” (by Paton). The ACS behaviors most commonly referred to are:

  • conflict with authority (for example truancy);
  • preoccupation with excessive fantasy;
  • pathological lying;
  • stealing;
  • running away (from home, school, group homes, situations);
  • learning difficulties, under-achievement, over-achievement;
  • lack of impulse control (acting out, promiscuity, sex crimes);
  • fascination with fire, fire-setting

By 1982, in children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) for hyperactivity, a 17% rate of non-relative adoption was found, –or eight times the rate for non-adopted children — and it was estimated that 23% of all adopted children would have ADD;. Today that percentage is much higher. As Jean Paton pointed out, “Do you have to be truant, or drop out of school, steal, get into juvenile detention homes, in order for people to realize that you need to have someone tell you about your origins?” Apparently the answer is still YES.

Years laters Kirschner still maintained:

“In twenty-five years of practice I have seen hundreds of adoptees, most adopted in infancy. In case after case, I have observed what I have come to call the Adopted Child Syndrome, which may include pathological lying, stealing, truancy, manipulation, shallowness of attachment, provocation of parents and other authorities, threatened or actual running away, promiscuity, learning problems, fire-setting, and increasingly serious antisocial behavior, often leading to court custody. It may include an extremely negative or grandiose self-image, low frustration tolerance, and an absence of normal guilt or anxiety.” (“The Adopted Child Syndrome: What Therapists Should Know,” Psychotherapy in Private Practice, vol. 8 (3) Hayworth Press, 1990)….

Kirschner concludes his paper with “Finally, I believe that most adoptees have the same emotional vulnerabilities that are seen in dramatic form in the Adopted Child Syndrome, and that all adoptees are at risk.”

In 1992, David M Brodzinsky, Marshall D Schechter & Robin Marantz Henig, authoredBeing Adopted: The Lifelong Search For Self.” Using their combined total of 55 years experience in clinical and research work with adoptees and their families, the authors use the voices of adoptees themselves to trace how adoption is experienced over a lifetime. Studies have shown that being adopted can affect many aspects of adoptees’ lives, from relationships with adoptive parents to bonds with their own children.

On September 23, 1992, Attorney Donald Humphrey, himself an adoptee, called attention to the Syndrome as a factor in cases where children murdered their adopters in Violence in Adoption,” a talk he gave at a conference of the American Adoption Congress.

In 1993 and 1994, the Syndrome was used as a defense in two cases of juvenile adoptees who murdered their adopters. Kirschner, a child psychologist, identified the Syndrome as a contributing factor with regard to Patrick DeGellecke who was 14 when he killed his adopters by setting fire to their home.

In “Heikkila,” Courier News (NJ, front page story, 10-12-93), Laurence Arnold added that the Syndrome is further characterized by “an absence of normal guilt or anxiety about one’s deeds” and newsstories that characterize young adoptees who killed their adopters as displaying “no emotion” or having “no remorse” support this. TheNew York Times account of Matthew Heikkila’s crime, “How the Adoption System Ignites a Fire,” by Betty Jean Lifton (3-1-94, p. 27), cites Kirschner as well as psychiatrist Arthur Sorosky, who helped set the precedent in the DeGellecke case with the Adopted Child Syndrome defense.

Adoptees including Larry Swartz (Maryland), Patrick Campbell (Connecticut), and Tammy and Kathryn Tomassoni (Arizona), now adults, were tried and convicted “as juveniles” for the murders of their respective adopters but also are among the very few adoptees who, having served their sentences, were released from prison. They never killed again and were reportedly living “normal” lives. Swartz, who married and had a child, was well liked by the community who called him a caring person; he was only 37 when died unexpectedly of a heart attack in 2004. His compelling story is detailed in “The Second Life of Larry Swartz: Friends Remember Murderer as ‘God’s Gift to Life,'” by MarylandMissing, Websleuths forum at:http://websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-18711 Other adoptees, such as Heikkila and Marty Tankleff, who were juveniles when they murdered their adopters (in Connecticut and New York, respectively), were neverthless convicted “as adults” and remain in prison.

One of the most intriguing and probably the most accurate assessment of the psychological dynamics of adoptees–particularly adoptees who commit violent crimes–has been advanced by many incarcerated adoptees themselves. They suggest that adoption, whether legal or illegal, is a dysfunction of kinship, and that the adoptee perceives many people in his world as “strangers.” What is seen in many adopted children is the beginning of a cycle of violence against adopters, or strangers, or both, as supported by AmFOR’s pages athttp://www.amfor.net/prisoners/ and http://www.amfor.net/killers/. There may be a reaction experienced by the adoptee in childhood that is the most primitive wound to the psyche — a theory shared by many adoption researchers – and that this wound is re-experienced at the very essence of his/her humanity even in adulthstory which, when focused, may find its end as predatory violence.

On 12-26-00, David Kirschner posted to the Internet newsgroup, alt.adoption:

“Rather, I have repeatedly emphasized the Syndrome describes a sub-set of adoptees at the end of a spectrum–and not ALL adoptees.”

Not only does it appear that Kirschner has acquiesced under pressure to be politically correct via AdoptSpeak, but also, in that moment, he contradicted decades of his own research, beliefs and published statements. And, again, he does not define “the spectrum of adoptees,” who have ACS, a point not lost on Kay Russell, anti-adoption activist, who posted a response to Kirschner under the screen name Saxon War Lord, as follows:

“Dr. Kirschner, is the spectrum a graduation of these symptoms? Would ACS be the end of the spectrum you’re talking about, like the MPD end of the Dissociative spectrum? What I mean is, I would not expect ACS to be at the end of a spectrum of all stable unaffected people, then suddenly a sub-set of affected adoptees. So the next sub-set on your spectrum would be ‘pretty disturbed’ but not ‘as disturbed’ as those with ACS — and next to that sub-set and other sub-sets affected, but to a lesser degree, and on and on down that spectrum….clear on down to the other end of the spectrum where we’d find adoptees who ‘fair pretty well despite being adopted.'”

Kirschner never responded.

Until the 2002 book, Chosen Children, and AmFOR’s web page athttp://www.amfor.net/killers/ made this information available, free on Internet, no one work had linked the majority of serial killers and others by the abnormality of their adoptive status. Increasingly, profilers, psychologists, sociologists, educators, journalists, script writers, defense attorneys and other researchers understand and explain adoptees’ behaviors in the context of their adoptions.

Interestingly, in 2007, David Kirschner, PhD, announced his new book, “Adoption: Uncharted Waters,” resurrecting his nearly abandoned “Adopted Child Syndrome” terminology; and his new book finally acknowledges cases of adoptees who committed homicide. Kirschner even goes so far as to suggest how to treat and prevent Adopted Child Syndrome. A browse of this website more than suggests the best way to prevent Adopted Child Syndrome is to prevent adoption.


A Casey Family Programs/Harvard Medical School study finds “rates of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD] among foster care alumni are up to twice as high as for U.S. war veterans!” Adoption has also produced an epidemic of disturbed kids, as hundreds of “examples” on this page beg the question: (1) WHY is the number of known Serial Killers, who are known to be adopted, disproportionate to the general population who are Serial Killers? and (2) WHY are there twice as many Adopted Killers who are known to be in the category “Adoptees Who Killed Their Adopters?”

On 9-17-07, after years of political waffling on his own theory of Adopted Child Syndrome, New York Psychotherapist David Kirschner, MD, finally acknowledged “The Connection Between Adoption and Murder,” but targets sealed adoptions, athttp://www.crimemagazine.com/07/adoptionforensics,0919-7.htm. This was five years after Lori Carangelo’s revealing statistical and anecdotal research on the subject in her book, “Chosen Children,” (originally published in 2002 by scholarly book publisher, Schenkman Books, now a free download athttp://www.amfor.net/chosenchildren/). Carangelo finds that competing interests of parents, adopters and adoptee, and how the adoption itself is perceived and handled in the adoptive family, even in so-called “open” and stepparent adoptions, is crucial to the child’s outcome.


In “MY ARMENIAN GENESIS: The Last Survivor” athttp://ArmenianAncestryBook.com – author Mary L. Foess (Judith Movsisian) exemplifies the adopted individual’s dilemma of a dual existence — one that demands suppression of pain from actual or perceived rejection while accepting as “normal” the abnormal status of one whose origins are secret — and one that compels a search for normalcy of familial relationships. Mary’s book lays bare not only her own feelings and admissions, but also the complexities of those who hold the answers to family secrets and who fear the proverbial “knock on the door” from an adoptee so obsessed by her need to know and to be accepted.

In “FORBIDDEN FAMILY” at http://ForbiddenFamily.com – author Joan Wheeler (Sipple), an adoptee who is a social worker, adoption reform activist, advocate for donor offspring and a suicide prevention and crisis counselor who has, for years, suffered clinical depression and battled thoughts of suicide, reveals how being adopted by strangers as a “half orphan” created the emotional abuse that has dominated her life ever since.

Chronological List of Psychopathology Studies

1937 David M. Levy, “Primary Affect Hunger,” American Journal of Psychiatry 94 (November 1937):643-652.
1937 Sydney Tarachow, “The Disclosure of Foster-Parentage to a Boy: Behavior Disorders and Other Psychological Problems Resulting,” American Journal of Psychiatry 94 (September 1937):401-412
1938 Edwina A. Cowan, “Some Emotional Problems Besetting the Lives of Foster Children,” Mental Hygiene 22 (July 1938):454-458.
1941 Robert P. Knight, “Some Problems in Selecting and Rearing Adopted Children,” Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 5 (May 1941):65-74.
1942 Elsie Stonesifer, “The Behavior Difficulties of Adopted and Own Children,”Smith College Studies in Social Work, vol 13 (November-December 1942):161.
1944 Houston McKee Mitchell, “Adopted Children as Patients of a Mental Hygiene Clinic,” Smith College Studies in Social Work 15 (1944):122-123.
1952 E. Wellisch, “Children Without Genealogy�A Problem of Adoption,” Mental Health 13 (1952):41-42.
1953 Portia Holman, “Some Factors in the Aetiology of Maladjusted Children,”Journal of Mental Science 99 (1953):654-688.
1953 Bernice T. Eiduson and Jean B. Livermore, “Complications in Therapy with Adopted Children,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 23 (October 1953):795-802
1954 National Association for Mental Health, A Survey Based on Adoption Case Records (London: National Association for Mental Health, 1954 est.).
1960 Marshall D. Schechter, “Observations on Adopted Children,” Archives of General Psychiatry 3 (July 1960):21-32.
1961 M.L. Kellmer Pringle, “The Incidence of Some Supposedly Adverse Family Conditions and of Left-Handedness in Schools for Maladjusted Children,”British Journal of Educational Psychology 31, no. 2 (June 1961):183-193.
1961 Bruce Gardner, Glenn R. Hawkes, and Lee G. Burchinal, “Noncontinuous Mothering in Infancy and Development in Later Childhood,” Child Development32 (June 1961):225-234.
1962 Betty K. Ketchum, “An Exploratory Study of the Disproportionate Number of Adopted Children Hospitalized at Columbus Children’s Psychiatric Hospital” (Masters Thesis, Ohio State University, 1962).
1962 Povl W. Toussieng, “Thoughts Regarding the Etiology of Psychological Difficulties in Adopted Children,” Child Welfare (February 1962):59-65, 71.
1962 Frances Lee Anderson Menlove, “Acting Out Behavior in Emotionally Disturbed Adopted Children” (Ph.D., University of Michigan, 1962).
1963 Michael Humphrey and Christopher Ounsted, “Adoptive Families Referred for Psychiatric Advice,” British Journal of Psychiatry 109 (1963):599-608.
1963 Jerome D. Goodman, Richard M. Silberstein, and Wallace Mandell, “Adopted Children Brought to Child Psychiatric Clinic,” Archives of General Psychiatry 9, no. 5 (November 1963):451-456.
1964 Marshall D. Schechter et al., “Emotional Problems in the Adoptee,”Archives of General Psychiatry 10 (February 1964):109-118.
1964 H. J. Sants, “Genealogical Bewilderment in Children with Substitute Parents,”British Journal of Medical Psychology 37, no. 1964 (1964):133-141.
1964 H. David Kirk, Shared Fate: A Theory of Adoption and Mental Health (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964).
1965 Frances Lee Menlove, “Aggressive Symptoms in Emotionally Disturbed Adopted Children,” Child Development 36, no. 2 (June 1965):519-532.
1966 Nathan M. Simon and Audrey G. Senturia, “Adoption and Psychiatric Illness,”American Journal of Psychiatry 122, no. 8 (February 1966):858-868.
1966 H. David Kirk, “Are Adopted Children Especially Vulnerable to Stress? A Critique of Some Recent Assertions,” Archives of General Psychiatry 14 (March 1966):291-298.
1966 Alfred Kadushin, “Adoptive Parenthood: A Hazardous Adventure?,” Social Work (July 1966):30-39.
1968 Shirley A. Reece and Barbara Levin, “Psychiatric Disturbances in Adopted Children: A Descriptive Study,” Social Work (January 1968):101-111.
1970 Marshall D. Schechter, “About Adoptive Parents,” in Parenthood: Its Psychology and Psychopathology, eds. E. James Anthony and Therese Benedek (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970), 353-371.
1975 Arthur D. Sorosky, Annette Baran, and Reuben Pannor, “Identity Conflicts in Adoptees,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 45 (January 1975):18-27.
1988 David Kirschner and Linda S. Nagel, “Antisocial Behavior in Adoptees: Patterns and Dynamics,” Child and Adolescent Social Work 5, no. 4 (Winter 1988):300-314.
1990 David Kirschner, “The Adopted Child Syndrome: Considerations for Psychotherapy,” Psychotherapy in Private Practice 8, no. 3 (1990):93-100.
1990 David Brodzinsky and Marshall Schechter, eds., The Psychology of Adoption(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).
1993 Nancy Newton Verrier, The Primal Wound: Understanding the Adopted Child(Baltimore, MD: Gateway Press, 1993).
1995 Katarina Wegar, “Adoption and Mental Health: A Theoretical Critique of the Psychopathological Model,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65 (October 1995):540-548.
1998 Joyce Maguire Pavao, The Family of Adoption (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998).

Vicky Haigh flees the babysnatchers

Good luck Vicky yet another mother who has had to flee the barbaric child protection and family court system here in the UK.

And i would like to just mention a few things to the social workers and police who have subjected this lady to all this stress. I accuse you all of abusing her unborn child and what about this unborn childs human rights ?

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

Babies in womb feel mothers’ anxiety at only four months

Women who suffer stress during pregnancy transmit their anxiety to their unborn child from as early as 17 weeks, research indicates.
Stress levels in foetuses only four months old — about the time the pregnancy starts to show — rise and fall in line with those of their mothers’.
The findings prompted calls for employers, family and friends to be aware of the risks and offer more help to moth-ers-to-be.
“For the first time, there’s solid evidence to show that an unborn child may be exposed to maternal stress as early as 17 weeks in development,” said Claire Friars, a midwife for Tommy’s, the baby charity.
“What is now clear is that high levels of stress in pregnancy can, in some cases, be detrimental to the health of the baby and to remain as stress-free as possible is certainly important. It is vital that pregnant women are given adequate support and reassurance from their family, friends and employers, to ensure they have a happy and healthy pregnancy.
A recent survey of 1,000 mothers-to-be conducted by Tommy’s found that pregnant women regularly felt stress at work. One in ten said that their employer was unsupportive when they announced their pregnancy and a quarter felt under pressure from employers who expected them to work just as they did before they became pregnant.
The research measured the stress hormone cortisol in the mother’s blood and in the amniotic fluid around the baby.
As the mother’s stress rose, so did that of the baby, according to Professor Vivette Glover at Imperial College London and consultant obstetrician Pampa Sarkar, of Wexham Park Hospital in Berkshire.
“We do not wish to unduly worry pregnant women. It should be remembered that one of the best ways for people to avoid general stress is to lead a healthy, balanced lifestyle,” Dr Sarker said.
“We are all a product of our developmental history. One of the times when we are most susceptible to the influences of our surrounding environment is when we are developing as a foetus in our mother’s womb. We found that the strength of this correlation became stronger with increasing gestational age. We now need to carry out further work to unravel the mechanisms by which maternal stress affects the foetus, both during foetal life and through into childhood.”
The theory behind the effect is that foetal programming is supposed to prepare babies for the life they will experience outside the womb. If the mother faced serious dangers, the baby had to be programmed to be born into a dangerous world. But these hangovers from the evolutionary past are no longer relevant, Professor Glover said.
The research is published in the May edition of Clinical Endocrinology. Professor Glover has previously shown a link between stress in pregnancy and the baby’s IQ. The greater the stress felt by the mother, measured by cortisol levels, the lower the IQ. The babies of stressed mothers were also more likely to be anxious and to show signs of attention-deficit disorder.

Women who suffer stress during pregnancy transmit their anxiety to their unborn child from as early as 17 weeks, research indicates.
Stress levels in foetuses only four months old — about the time the pregnancy starts to show — rise and fall in line with those of their mothers’.
The findings prompted calls for employers, family and friends to be aware of the risks and offer more help to moth-ers-to-be.
“For the first time, there’s solid evidence to show that an unborn child may be exposed to maternal stress as early as 17 weeks in development,” said Claire Friars, a midwife for Tommy’s, the baby charity.
“What is now clear is that high levels of stress in pregnancy can, in some cases, be detrimental to the health of the baby and to remain as stress-free as possible is certainly important. It is vital that pregnant women are given adequate support and reassurance from their family, friends and employers, to ensure they have a happy and healthy pregnancy.
A recent survey of 1,000 mothers-to-be conducted by Tommy’s found that pregnant women regularly felt stress at work. One in ten said that their employer was unsupportive when they announced their pregnancy and a quarter felt under pressure from employers who expected them to work just as they did before they became pregnant.
The research measured the stress hormone cortisol in the mother’s blood and in the amniotic fluid around the baby.
As the mother’s stress rose, so did that of the baby, according to Professor Vivette Glover at Imperial College London and consultant obstetrician Pampa Sarkar, of Wexham Park Hospital in Berkshire.
“We do not wish to unduly worry pregnant women. It should be remembered that one of the best ways for people to avoid general stress is to lead a healthy, balanced lifestyle,” Dr Sarker said.
“We are all a product of our developmental history. One of the times when we are most susceptible to the influences of our surrounding environment is when we are developing as a foetus in our mother’s womb. We found that the strength of this correlation became stronger with increasing gestational age. We now need to carry out further work to unravel the mechanisms by which maternal stress affects the foetus, both during foetal life and through into childhood.”
The theory behind the effect is that foetal programming is supposed to prepare babies for the life they will experience outside the womb. If the mother faced serious dangers, the baby had to be programmed to be born into a dangerous world. But these hangovers from the evolutionary past are no longer relevant, Professor Glover said.
The research is published in the May edition of Clinical Endocrinology. Professor Glover has previously shown a link between stress in pregnancy and the baby’s IQ. The greater the stress felt by the mother, measured by cortisol levels, the lower the IQ. The babies of stressed mothers were also more likely to be anxious and to show signs of attention-deficit disorder.

Vicky Haigh flees the babysnatchers

Using parliamentary privilege, John Hemming MP has named renowned jockey and trainer Vicky Haigh as the woman threatened with imprisonment for speaking to him, writes Christopher Booker.

VIcki Haigh is well known and respected in the world of horse racing

VIcki Haigh is well known and respected in the world of horse racing Photo: PA/GARETH COPLEY
Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 30 Apr 2011

Last week brought two further startling developments in a story I reported a fortnight ago, concerning a heavily pregnant mother summoned at very short notice to the London High Court to show why she should not be imprisoned. Among the charges against her were that she had spoken at a meeting in Parliament convened by the All Party Group of MPs on family law related issues.

On Tuesday, the convenor of that meeting, John Hemming MP, who has been at the centre of the much-publicised campaign against excessive court secrecy and “super-injunctions”, used parliamentary privilege to name the mother on the floor of the House, which is why it can now be reported. On a point of order, he referred to “Vicky Haigh, a horse trainer and former jockey” as the subject of “an attempt by Doncaster council to imprison her for speaking at a meeting in Parliament”.

We can still say nothing about the case which led to the increasingly controversial order Miss Haigh was alleged to have breached. But it may be added that her successes as a trainer and a jockey have made her very well-known in the racing world.

The other new twist to this story, which I can also report because it is a wholly different case, not yet the subject of legal proceedings, is that last week Miss Haigh took flight from Britain to Ireland, because she had apparently been forewarned that the social services of another local authority, Nottinghamshire, were planning to seize her baby when it is born in two weeks’ time. Her new child is by a partner with whom she has lived happily for six years, as a loved stepmother to his three children. They were all much looking forward to the new addition to the family.

It is hard to imagine the ordeals to which this prospective mother has been subjected in the final stages of her pregnancy, which, as I reported earlier, included being arrested and held for much of 65 hours in fetid police cells. Three times she had to be rushed to hospital because of complications with her pregnancy, but each time the police took her back to the cells. They finally released her, exhausted, three days after her arrest.

In escaping abroad to evade England’s “family protection” system, Miss Haigh is following the example of an increasing number of parents desperate to avoid their loved children being seized. Dozens of others have fled, often at great personal cost, to foreign jurisdictions such as Ireland, Sweden, Spain, Uganda or northern Cyprus (though councils have been known to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money trying to get the children back).

The excuse social workers increasingly favour to justify seizing newborn babies from parents is that the child might be “at risk of emotional abuse”. This is an innuendo so vague and emotive that it can be made – and too often accepted by judges – without social workers having to produce any evidence that can be proved or disproved. “Emotional abuse” is now used in more than 50 per cent of cases where children are taken into care.

Fortunately for Miss Haigh, as she prepares for her child’s birth, she has many friends in the Irish racing world who have given her a warm welcome. She is a strong woman – a quality she may have inherited from her father, the footballer Jack Haigh, much respected in his day – and she is determined to fight for the right to have her family. We have not heard the end of this disturbing story.

For legal reasons, comments are disabled on this story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8485742/Vicky-Haigh-flees-the-babysnatchers.html

April 30, 2011

EXPERT WITNESSES WHO USE CHILDREN SUBJECTED TO FAMILY COURT PROCEDURES FOR MONETARY GAIN

I am writing this piece to raise awareness of these so called expert witnesses that are bought in by Social Services and Cafcass more often than not to write damning reports against parents so that they lose their children to permanent foster care or forced adoption.

What the media never print is how much these experts are paid through taxpayers money and how corrupt the whole system is.

These experts who write reports against the parents often do so out of pure motivation to’ get rich quick’. Were they to write a favourable report the work from Social Services and Cafcass hellbent on snatching children to win their case would diminish.

Some of these experts have their fingers in other pies take Karen Houghton Chartered psychologist who not only makes money stating children should not be with their parents but also is listed on a post adoption agency offering therapy to these children for the attachment disorders she has helped to create.

In the next couple of months another so called expert is due to be outed , this is Dr George Hibbert currently under investigation by the GMC . I am just awaiting their decision in writing so cannot say too much at the moment but should be able to in a couple of months when their legal team have given this Dr a chance to respond to their findings.

Below is an article by the independant referring to Southall.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/how-a-crusader-against-abuse-provoked-the-anger-of-accused-parents-2276845.html

April 27, 2011

MP John Hemming outs Doncaster council over injunction

MP John Hemming outs Doncaster council over injunction

The row over the use of injunctions intensified on Tuesday when an MP used parliamentary privilege to name horse-racing figure Vicky Haigh as being gagged by a council.

Liberal Democrat MP John HemmingLiberal Democrat MP John Hemming

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming told the Commons that Doncaster council has been trying to ‘imprison’ Ms Haigh, who is eight months pregnant, for speaking against them.

He said: ‘Vicky Haigh, who is a horse trainer and previously a jockey, was the subject of an attempt by Doncaster Council to imprison her for speaking at a meeting in parliament.’

The terms of the injunction prevent any further details being disclosed.

Speaker John Bercow urged Mr Hemming to speak to him privately, telling the MP: ‘I don’t intend to have a discussion on the floor of the House.’

Ms Haigh is also prevented from talking about the details.

But she told Metro: ‘It has been so stressful. I have worked with animals all my life and I wouldn’t treat an animal in the way they have treated me.

‘They are so inhumane. They are barbaric. They seem to thrive on making my life hell.’

Mother-of-one Ms Haigh, 40, from Doncaster, is due to give birth to her second child in three weeks.

She said more than £20,000 saved for her wedding this summer has been spent on defending herself in the High Court in London.

Speaking to Metro last night, Mr Hemming, who previously named former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin as the subject of a super-injunction, said he would continue to raise the issue.

He said: ‘I’m planning to carry on exposing the names of those who have been silenced. Parliament makes the law in this country.’

Doncaster council was unavailable for comment last night.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/861794-mp-john-hemming-outs-doncaster-council-over-injunction#ixzz1KicV0Zrl

April 23, 2011

The judge has forbidden anyone to tell me what he wanted me to hear

The judge has forbidden anyone to tell me what he wanted me to hear

The secrecy of the family courts system has reached a bizarre new extreme, says Christopher Booker.

Torn apart: the system of child protection is a national scandal Photo: ALAMY
Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 23 Apr 2011

The attempts by judges to hide the strange activities of our family courts from public view are becoming ever more surreal. Last week they reached a bizarre new extreme, at the end of a case which I reported on last year more than once – a case that illustrates, chillingly, what has gone wrong with a system that too often allows social workers to seize children from blameless and devoted parents, on highly dubious evidence and for no apparent reason.

For some time before the final hearing of this case, there was considerable effort made to let me know that the judge wished I should attend. I knew he was irked by what I reported of the story last year, although I had been careful to observe the reporting restrictions. Naturally, I was curious to know why he now seemed so anxious for me to be present. As it happened, however, I was not able to attend. I have therefore only been able to surmise what occurred.

It seems the judge issued a very strict warning to everyone in court that they must not communicate anything of what had gone on to any outsider. Had I been present, I have no doubt that his remarks would have been particularly directed at me, and I would of course have been prohibited from reporting the case at all, on pain of contempt of court and possibly prison. If this is what happened, however, the judge overlooked one important point: there was no way that anyone in the court was allowed to communicate the judge’s warning to me.

I can only guess – on the basis of my detailed knowledge of what happened earlier – that the case ended in a way which, had I been able to report it, would have deeply shocked my readers. Had it gone otherwise, I would be free to report it in detail.

Judicial gagging orders have been much publicised of late, thanks to the determined campaign being waged to expose what is wrong with them by John Hemming MP. But almost all the media attention has focused on the power of the courts to suppress reporting on the alleged sexual activities of footballers. Less notice has been paid to the real purpose of Mr Hemming’s campaign: to expose the much worse scandal of the secrecy surrounding our family courts, and the horrible injustices too often inflicted on innocent parents who are treated like criminals without their voices being allowed to be heard.

It is this that Mr Hemming wishes to see exposed to public view – and the curious behaviour last week of a judge I cannot name, in a city I cannot name, in a case of which I cannot be allowed to know the outcome, is just a further instance of how grievously this system has been allowed to go off the rails.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8470199/The-judge-has-forbidden-anyone-to-tell-me-what-he-wanted-me-to-hear.html

Pregnant woman threatened with prison for breach of gagging order

Pregnant woman threatened with prison for breach of gagging order

By Andy McSmith

Saturday, 23 April 2011

The woman, who was eight months pregnant, drove for several hours to get to courtALAMY

The woman, who was eight months pregnant, drove for several hours to get to court

Parliament is being urged to intervene in the case of a heavily pregnant woman who was threatened with prison for naming her local council during a public meeting in the House of Commons.

The woman is subject to a sweeping family court order which makes it an offence to identify her, or the council involved, or any council staff involved, or to say what the case is about. It makes it illegal for her to seek publicity for the case, or for anyone else to approach her for information about it.

It is an example of the kind of gagging order which family courts have the power to issue, to protect the vulnerable, but there are fears that they can also be used as a convenient device for local officials who do not want controversial decisions to be subjected to public scrutiny.

They are distinct from the injunctions increasingly obtained by wealthy or famous men – and nearly all are men – who do not want the media publicising their sexual peccadilloes or information that may harm their businesses.

The increasing use of injunctions prompted David Cameron to say this week that he has become worried that judges, rather then Parliament, are creating a privacy law. John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP who has been campaigning against the spread of gagging orders, said yesterday he has referred the woman’s case to the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, because of the questions it raises about free speech. “I have referred this issue to Mr Speaker for a reference to the Standards and Privileges Committee,” he said yesterday.

He also plans to use parliamentary privilege to reveal the name of the local authority when Parliament returns after Easter.

Three weeks ago, Mr Hemming chaired a meeting in the Commons to discuss whether there is too much secrecy around family courts and courts of protection, to which the public were invited. Guest speakers included Anthony Douglas, head of the Court and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) which protects the interests of children in family court cases.

During the meeting, the woman, who was in the audience, spoke about her own experience, referring to a council and a social worker by name. Two weeks later, she received a summons to appear at the Royal Courts of Justice.

The message implied that she faced prison, though she learnt when she arrived in court that the council was not seeking to have her locked up. In the meantime, she had consulted a solicitor and engaged a barrister, leaving her with a legal bill of around £10,000.

Although she is notallowed to talk about the case itself, the woman described to The Independent yesterday what happened after her visit to the Commons. “I had been encouraged by different people to speak to MPs after I had had no joy with the council complaints procedures, so I thought ‘there’s an MP and the head of CAFCASS in the same room’ – that’s why I went,” she said.

“When I got the summons I was shocked. I only found out at a quarter to seven on Monday that on Wednesday morning I had to appear in court in London. I live hours away by car and I’m nearly eight months pregnant, but I got there. I thought it was sensible to attend. I didn’t know what I had done wrong. I was totally shocked that it was to do with a meeting in Parliament.”

Mr Hemming, who is collecting information on injunctions to present to the Commons Justice Committee, sees the case as a striking example that the courts, rather than MPs, are making decisions about privacy and free speech.

“With the judges acting to reduce freedom of speech it becomes even more important to protect freedom of speech in Parliament,” he said yesterday. “Citizens should be allowed to raise problems with MPs. The names of the local authority and the mother have to remain unspoken because of injunctions. But it is my intention to reveal this using parliamentary privilege when Parliament reconvenes next week. People need to know what is being done in their name. The truth must come out.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pregnant-woman-threatened-with-prison-for-breach-of-gagging-order-2273736.html

April 20, 2011

fantastic article by researching reform

Researching Reform wrote an article for Only Dads this week on one of our proposals which we’ve put to the government. Essentially, it looks at the unwitting effects of the family justice system on the mental health of the families that come before it and calls on government to heed the warnings and look to the solutions being offered, not just by Researching Reform but by people who have a wealth of experience in the field and a passion for their subject.

You can read the article at Only Dads here.

(Also uploaded onto Scribd).

Pulling the Trigger: The Mailbox Monster and Martial Law

In ten year’s time, or thereabouts, it will be taken as fact that the family justice system today was responsible, in significant ways, for contributing to soaring levels of mental health disorders faced not just by parents going through the courts, but later on, by their children. I modestly suggest this will also be established in other jurisdictions in the western world, too.

Whilst it would be terribly unfair to suggest that people inside the system have colluded together with the sole purpose of trying to deteriorate the mental health of families that come before them, the heady combination of several high impact stress triggers within the system and the government’s fear of addressing the  problems without finding themselves caught in ever increasing political and financial conflicts of interest means that much like the sub-prime mortgage crisis, it is likely that intervention and reformation will not take place before we’ve paid too high a price. And it would be very easy to make the case that with one small life lost, the price is already too high.

Yet there are very real issues that need to be addressed when considering how the process affects mental health.

The family justice system is not sophisticated. Practitioners themselves, in private, often speak of it as a blunt instrument, often unable to provide the kind of detail that is required in family matters. When that metaphorical gavel comes crashing down, there’s no telling sometimes, where and on what, it will land. And the mess it makes, both physically and mentally, can be devastating.

Stress is often the catalyst for mental health deterioration and to that end we can perhaps group together a few major stimuli that cause stress levels within families to soar when they go through the family courts: these are what could be described as stress triggers. It’s important, I believe, to mention that before families come to the courts, there is an emotional background that is not taken into consideration, which adds to families’ stress levels especially when professionals inside the system don’t understand that they are not working with people at their best – they are working with people often at their worst and are therefore vulnerable and need support.

Arguably the greatest stress trigger is one related to the science in the system. Many professionals don’t seem to be aware of the high levels of stress families are already under by the time they come to it and focusing as they do on inter departmental issues like goal incentives and inter-group politics, the real focus which should be, to my mind, on trying to stabilise families first before supporting with advice, is being ignored. Mediation for divorcing couples is the latest offering in this department but it will not provide government with the solution they crave – supporting families so that they are confident and calm enough to make their own choices or feel comfortable being aided to do so, will bring about the kind of solutions good for families and good for government.

The lack of understanding about the range of emotions that families go through when they come to the courts is also confounding. Social workers often retaliate with anger when a family member shouts at them upon advising, as they sometimes have to in public family law cases that a report into the care of their child may lead to the child being removed. This is a perfectly normal reaction and yet, it remains largely misunderstood. The social worker takes it personally and before you know it, they allow their own upset to muddy the waters and retaliate by taking their hurt out on the family, sometimes through mild forms of bullying right through to court of protection orders, effectively removing decision making from the person in question and doing so without just cause in these instances.

There are unfortunately many cases where families who have perfectly good track records with their children are treated abysmally because they chose to challenge rather forceful social workers on ill-founded assumptions. Whilst physical violence should never be tolerated, there has to be a basic understanding of how family breakdown manifests in families emotionally and an inherent respect for the families in question.  The kind of miscommunication going on at present is causing stress levels to soar, not just for families but for social workers too, who really should be able to spend regular periods of time with councillors to decompress and let out their own anxieties of having to work with often very troubled families. Without that support, people inside the system become very jaded and this has a definite impact on the way services are delivered. We’re all human.

Another stress trigger related to the science in the system stems from the lack of uniform and accepted knowledge on psychiatric conditions. The confusion in the family courts on these matters and the wildly fluctuating standards across the country are also sub-triggers, leaving families feeling as if they are at the mercy of disinterested bystanders sent to fill out forms and load the families up onto processing trays, to be dissected and divided at will. The stress of being misdiagnosed is immeasurable and there are far too many examples in the news from Dr Meadows to mothers who run away from England to escape wrongful diagnosis (due to impending removal of their children from their care) for this stress trigger to be ignored. The trauma this causes to children is enormous: from the fear of losing their parents in scenarios which should never have placed families under such a microscope, to sometimes the need to relocate, whether through fear or a poorly judged court order needs no explanation. And when families are wrongfully separated, one can only imagine the psychological harm that causes, with intense trepidation.

A further factor relates to the family courts being seemingly unaware of how these flaws inside the system all compound together to create major stress triggers and unwittingly force some families to be exposed to several of them at once, for extended periods of time, without anyone trying to stabilise the families during any part of the process. These raw, vulnerable units are often left to deal with the weight of an ailing and heartless system on their own and as they struggle to cope, their deterioration is often wrongfully misinterpreted as an implicit sign of their being something wrong with the families in the first instance, when in reality they are simply responding to insurmountable pressures placed upon them by a Neolithic system.

In fact the system is so basic that even the complaints procedures seem to be a no man’s land of no response and ‘no one home’. But it is even worse than this. With the system’s growing reputation for being unreasonable and irrational, today, people are sufficiently aware that should they even contemplate attempting to complain about poor treatment in the family justice system that they will probably find themselves open to prejudice and their case compromised by irate professionals who feel angered at being singled out for bad behaviour. As a result, even more families are afraid to speak out, leaving countless children at risk of gross injustice. It is of course true that sometimes people complain unfairly about those who work in the system yet the culture of retaliation within the departments in the system is strong and clearly unprofessional. And it’s contributing to the erosion of the system and the mental health of the families that come before them.

An added and significant stress trigger relates to poor communication, not just between families and professionals mentioned above, but by legal sectors which often cross paths during family proceedings. Family matters encompass myriad legal areas, from potential domestic violence issues resulting in criminal convictions or cautions to angry spouses sometimes trying to shed responsibility for financial obligations or even just shuffling assets around to friends and family to appear financially stressed, the system finds it almost impossible, unless you happen to be a millionaire and can conduct the evidence gathering process yourself in some instances, to ‘talk’ with various sectors and find out whether there are criminal judgments or fraudulent activities taking place. So poor is it, in fact, that when a breach of the law is committed in another field, families are often advised that family lawyers can do nothing about it, because it is ‘not their area of expertise’. This is understandable, but neither are matters relating to custody or contact, which is why they farm out these issues to Cafcass officers, for instance. This lack of pro-active and creative thinking cripples the system and leaves families at the mercy of the court’s ignorance, which is particularly dangerous in matters relating to child welfare and potentially violent parents. The levels of stress for children and the vulnerable spouse here is obvious.

And the financial implications of the process, set only to become greater as the government proposes charges for things like help with child maintenance and almost all but abolishes legal aid are a massive stress trigger for families. The cost of hiring lawyers is mind bogglingly high, with customer service satisfaction at an all time low. It’s all very well saying that no one is ever happy with the outcome of a court process in family matters but that is to ignore the often very poor quality service families receive in this area. The number of times families complain that their solicitors don’t even get back to them in a timely manner and seem to be immune to picking up the phone and returning a call is just a small part of a much bigger service provision problem. In private family matters especially, the majority of people simply cannot afford to pay for the kind of service that might, at a stretch, ensure the judge has all the information they need before them to have a shot at making an informed decision and when families try, they are often vilified for spending money doing so.

And after a while, some of the stress triggers become so all embracing, that parents start to take days off work and eventually remove themselves entirely via sick leave. At that point, it’s only a matter of time, before someone loses a job and finances take a hit. With a reduced level of income, already stretched due to the separation and the less than civil treatment families feel going through the process thanks to a system that operates as if it is under martial law, removing civil liberties sometimes without due care and consideration and doling out judgments that seem completely at odds with the realities of the families that come to court, families who are already in distress find themselves on the brink.

It’s a caustic catch 22, a bitter sweet blackmail wrap, that leaves families high and dry whether they bite on the bullet and pay through the nose at the expense of their families’ income or simply forego spending on the process and hope that justice will out, usually in vain. For how can a judge possibly make an effective decision without all the information?

The last major stress trigger is arguably the adversarial nature of the system. It might be fun for lawyers to battle it out in court and I daresay even more so in the corporate world, where the playing field is better suited to the rough and tumble of semantic sparring but to the family who’s future is being held in the balance, the tension and ‘excitement’ is not enjoyable nor indeed is it appropriate by virtue of the fact that there is a definite lack of dignity to the process which sends out a subliminal message: this is about our game not your perspective. The alienation from the process is a sub-trigger in itself, making families feel as if they are not a party to their own fate and more worryingly, that their views on their fate are irrelevant. This, coupled with the tangible hostility that is encouraged in some quarters, only serves to heighten anxiety levels, which parents harbour and take home and often unable to set the angst aside, expose their children to high levels of anxiety at best or at worst, unable to control the fear at all, take it out on their children.

As the court processes in family matters take longer and longer to complete, the chance for mental health to deteriorate and become debilitating, increases. The story of the Mail Box Monster is one such example. It has become something akin to Family Law Folklore, but I’m often asked why letters from solicitors always seem to arrive on Fridays, always carrying some kind of harrowing message and more often than not, laced with passive aggressive-style blackmail usually written with a hostile bite to match and sometimes just downright rude. I have seen many of these letters for myself. None of the ones I read suggested for a moment that the parties in question had fallen foul of the law or the payment of a bill.

Yet this Mail Box Monster manifests every Friday and families have to limp on through the weekend, often trying desperately to put a brave face on for the children, sometimes not succeeding, but leaving parents feeling anxious and tired with worry. If left unchecked, the Mail Box Monster becomes a spectre in the psyche, so much so that families even come to fear their mailbox. And I have experienced this myself. After two years of receiving vitriolic rhetoric from lawyers who thought they were being terribly clever, woefully blinded by what was perhaps well meaning sentiment, I too began to fear and loathe my mailbox. It became very difficult to consider going down to check the mail and every time I saw a letter in the box, I would panic. My heart would start to beat terribly fast and although the court process had come to an end and I knew those letters were not related, I would panic nevertheless as to what might be inside the envelopes: was it good news? Was it bad news? And if it was bad news, how bad would the bad news be? The sheer level of my anxiety, heightened over such a long period of time, had worn down my resistance and my ability to take uncertainty in my stride. My only respite from the fear was the time I spent with my son. During those periods, my anxiety would melt away, lost in the heavenly haze of my motherly pursuits. But being uncomfortable with the idea of being uncomfortable in such a situation, I resolved to sort the problem out. Soon, I was receiving occasional parcels in my mailbox from Amazon, filled with books, for myself and my son. Instead of going down to my local book store to buy novels and children’s stories, I had decided to send them to myself in the post. There were two advantages to this: the books were quite a bit cheaper and my fear of the Mail Box Monster began to die-down, as my delight at finding my favourite books in the box took over. I am now no longer afraid of the mail box and have renewed my patronage at the book store, but it never ceases to surprise me, how many families I come across who are familiar with the Mail Box Monster too.

There is no doubt that we cannot blame the system for the problems  families bring to court but we can take a compassionate view and change the way the system reacts to parents and their children by invigorating the system with a renewed energy, patience and passion to problem solve. All these things are free – they just require a sifting of the system, to find lawyers, judges, social workers and doctors who genuinely care about their work and the families that come before them and who have a deep understanding of the human condition and how it is affected by inter-related processes.

Going through my own divorce, it never ceased to astound me how little empathy and genuine listening went on in the process and how determined people were to take a point of view without full consideration and run with it, often to the detriment of all of us. At the end of the process, a lawyer once turned to me and said “Now can you see that the courts are not to blame and that it really is all down to you and your husband?” He was not a family lawyer and had not been a part of my divorce. I did not want to contradict him but I did reply “I take the view, that everyone has a part to play in the process”. I learned later on that this lawyer had rather unfortunately started to go through a rather acrimonious divorce himself. I did wonder whether his sentiments changed during that period of time.

It would be a pretty bleak thing if everyone had to go through the process themselves before they fully understood the ramifications of the system on the mental health of parents and children going through the courts. But there is plenty of evidence and information out there now for us to conduct research that, I believe, would show quite clearly that the lack of communication on all levels and the sheer cost of the process is unduly harming families and to that end I have asked the government to review a proposal for that research. I don’t know who will be brave enough to take it on, but I hope very much that in ten years’ time, the system will respond to the challenges it faces – and come to life.

Natasha Phillips, 17th March, 2011

http://researchingreform.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/pulling-the-trigger-the-mail-box-monster-and-martial-law/

April 19, 2011

Please post your gagging orders to John Hemming MP, House of Commons, London . STOP THE SECRET FAMILY COURTS !

Quaero Injunctions and the Inquiry

John Hemming MP, who is campaigning against excessive and unlawful court secrecy, has launched an inquiry in parliament into the growing numbers of gagging orders.

“I will be collecting a range of different gagging orders,” he said, “and then analysing and sorting them into different categories. I will then produce a number of parliamentary petitions summarising the details and pass them to the Justice Select Committee for further investigation.”

“What is clear,” he said, “is that almost all of the super and hyper injunctions have no public judgment. That means that they are not compliant with the rules for a fair trial. There is also the question as to whether there should be an automatic time limit on an interim order. Many cases have an interim order and no final hearing. This is clearly wrong. We also need to know what the costs are both for the applicant and for the media in defending these orders. It is wrong to have a system whereby people can buy the sort of justice they want. That is a contravention of Clause 29 of Magna Carta 1297 (which is still in force).”

“A good example of an injunction that is handled properly is that relating to ZAM and CFW/TFW. This is accompanied by a published judgment. However, what is not in the published judgment is the amount of costs awarded although the fact of the awarding of costs is in the judgment. The judgment should reveal the amount of costs as well.”

New type of injunction – the Quaeroinjunction

Mr Hemming has also revealed a new type of injunction against investigative journalism. “I have recently seen a gagging order that prevents people seeking information about a case from the parties. This goes a step further than preventing people speaking out against injustice. It also puts any investigative journalist at risk if they ask any questions of a victim of a potential miscarriage of justice.

“I call this the the Quaeroinjunction, after the latin work “to seek”. I don’t think this should be allowed in English courts. It has the effect of preventing journalists from speaking to people subject to this injunction without a risk of the journalist going to jail. That is a recipe for hiding miscarriages of justice.”

“Anyone who has a gagging injunction that they would like to go into this proceeding in parliament should post it to me at John Hemming MP, House of Commons, London SW1 0AA.”

ENDS

Notes for Editors
Magna Carta Clause 29 is here

Article 6 ECHR is here

April 17, 2011

A mother is threatened with imprisonment for talking to her MP

A mother is threatened with imprisonment for talking to her MP

The high-handed power of social workers and the courts, working in tandem, threatens even the privileges of Parliament, writes 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 16 Apr 201148 Comments

Last week a heavily pregnant woman, whose name is known to millions but whom I am forbidden by law to identify, was summoned to the High Court at very short notice to show why she should not be imprisoned. The charges against her, brought by a local authority I cannot name, were that she might or might not have been in breach of a court order restraining her freedom to speak about a matter which, again, I am prohibited from identifying.

One of these charges was that she attended a meeting, held last month in Westminster Hall, of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on family protection issues, at the invitation of John Hemming MP. He has been campaigning for greater justice and transparency in our highly secretive family protection system, on behalf of families torn apart by social workers for what appear to be no good reasons.

The main speaker at the meeting, the theme of which was transparency in the family courts, was Anthony Douglas, the chief executive of Cafcass (Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service), the state body which purports to represent the interests of children. When the woman raised concerns over the conduct of her case – which, as she understood it, was the meeting’s purpose – it was reported back to the council concerned. This contribution was listed among her alleged breaches of a court order which dictates that she must say nothing about her case to anyone outside the system.

In open court last week, it was stated that the local authority had agreed not to demand her imprisonment, providing that she also obeyed new conditions that forbid her to speak about her case to the media or to any “other persons as the parties may think fit”.

In addition, as I learned from John Hemming, a letter “agreed by all the parties” was sent to him by the woman’s solicitors, requesting him not to make any reference to her case in Parliament. By ancient parliamentary privilege, MPs are entitled to raise in Parliament cases where they believe that the conduct of authorities or the courts has been so questionable that normal rules of secrecy should not protect them from public disclosure. Mr Hemming replied to the lawyers that they were “clearly seeking to influence what I say in Parliament. The case already has aspects which are in contempt of Parliament” and their letter added a further element which “I am inclined to ask should be referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee”.

It is difficult to believe, he continued, “when a mother has been threatened with imprisonment for talking to me, that an agreement come to in a court is come to willingly by all parties. It strikes me as an agreement arising as a result of duress.” Mr Hemming went on to say that, before referring to the Speaker a letter which he saw as being “in contravention of the law of Parliament”, he wished the lawyers to explain why he should “feel comfortable that this is something your client should have agreed to without having been threatened with imprisonment and/or the removal of her child at birth”.

He emphasised that he had no intention of disclosing any “information relating to the care proceedings which could be linked to your client or the child”. But from long experience of such cases, he saw the letter “as an attempt by the system to bully your client in an attempt to influence proceedings in Parliament”. He concluded that he would be entitled to “debate the constitutional issues raised simply by naming your client and raising the issues of her treatment by the police and the authorities’ attempts to punish her for her comments to the All-Party Parliamentary Group” .

The mention of the police referred, inter alia, to a recent episode where the mother, who is seven months pregnant, was arrested and held on and off in police cells over a period of 60 hours. Three times she was rushed to hospital in serious distress due to complications in her pregnancy. She was then dragged from her hospital bed after midnight to spend several more hours in a dirty cell, before finally being released.

As Mr Hemming sums the situation up: “There are many very disturbing aspects of this case, about which I cannot yet say as much as I would like. But it appears to be a very extreme example of the lengths to which the family protection system will go to hide its activities from responsible scrutiny by Parliament and the media.”

Real-time updating is enabled.

29 minutes ago
Here Here I so agree with you on that 🙂

Yesterday 11:50 PM
Recommended by
2 people
And here’s me thinking that the SS only ran Hitler’s death camps.

Yesterday 11:40 PM
Recommended by
5 people
Has anyone raised this with the relevant authorities? That is: the Head of Legal Services and the Director of Children’s Services at Doncaster Council; the Chief Constable of Doncaster Constabulary and the Chief Constable of Humberside Constabulary; and also the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.

If not can I suggest that whomever is representing Ms Haigh do so at once?

On the face of the complaint made Ms Haigh appears to have been the victim of perjury, harassment, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. As well as police misconduct, and incompetence/dishonesty of social workers.

BTW: it is a criminal offence for someone to claim to be a solicitor when they are not.

Yesterday 11:33 PM
Recommended by
5 people
Ah, England. Destroyed from the inside. It’s enough to make me convert to Islam.

35 minutes ago
Recommended by
1 person
I love it, at least we would have more rights than we do at the moment and we would NEVER lose our children on a whim like they take brits at the moment.

Yesterday 11:14 PM
Recommended by
8 people
This is horrific.

Yesterday 10:39 PM
Recommended by
17 people
The courts and the ss’s behaviour smacks of intimidation and it is a disgusting way to behave.

Their behaviour has been building up to this for over 20 years.

Their need to have absolute control over others suggest the people who enter these professions have some sort of psychological disorders and quite frankly it is they who should be locked up.

They do it, because they can get away with it. Politicians have sat on the fence for a good 10 years, time for this appalling institutional abuse to be stopped.

I hope John Hemming MP names them (not his constituent) and discloses their behaviour in Parliament. Then it is captured in Hansard. What are they going to do try and get him arrested for doing his job?

Yesterday 10:42 PM
Recommended by
9 people
Spot on Oldmaid. I have been thinking for ages that they have psychological disorders. They seem to be sociopaths. Cartimandua is a brilliant example.

Yesterday 10:08 PM
Recommended by
19 people
Cartimandua of course says that MPs should not raise matters in Parliament if told not to by solicitors in the family courts division ! Perhaps MPs should also submit their speeches to social workers before they say anything?

Yesterday 09:59 PM
Recommended by
14 people
Why isn’t this a headline on the front page?

Yesterday 11:09 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Because editors value their liberty, perhaps?

Yesterday 09:58 PM
Recommended by
2 people
The womans solicitors who knew about all of it asked that Hemmings not bring it all up and he did anyway.

2a letter “agreed by all the parties” was sent to him by the woman’s solicitors, requesting him not to make any reference to her case in Parliament.”

Brilliant genius well no, an abuse of his position.

33 minutes ago
@ Cartmandanua, do you know something I don’t expect any other kind of comments than like this from a “Professional Troll” like yourself and all your colleges whom work with you, I mean you are one of the ones who will go to extreme lengths to keep the Courts closed so that nothing can be reported so you will never be caught out for the bull that you and the rest spout”

Yesterday 10:55 PM
Recommended by
9 people
Why should this woman not be able to speak to her MP?

What statute states a constituent cannot talk to their MP if they are involved in a civil Court case?

Kubizek
Yesterday 10:31 PM
Recommended by
17 people
What a strange comment. The MP is there to represent the public interest as he sees fit. He is accountable to his electorate, not the Courts.

Yesterday 10:29 PM
Recommended by
12 people
Carty – out for the evening or the weekend? Got your tag on?

You really are an idiot, aren’t you? I elect my MP to look after my interests and that is precisely what Hemmings was doing – what he was elected for.

Go and read the link IJ left earlier and tell me that the events and shady doings by the police in that are acceptable practice.

If our MPs are going to be gagged, and that includes the Family Courts, then that is the rest of our democracy out of the window. People like you need to be held accountable.

Guest
Yesterday 10:49 PM
Recommended by
2 people
Comment removed.

Yesterday 11:01 PM
Recommended by
9 people
cartimandua

That’s odd, an constituent can’t talk to her MP about it. A journalist cannot mention it.

But you can and in a newspaper!

I think you have just blown your purported right to secrecy.

Yesterday 09:53 PM
Recommended by
5 people
This woman should have been jailed for the rest of her life,and to all the others on here who are moaning i would have you all rounded up and shot,this is a free democratic country,you can say what you like as long as you are in the bath by yourself when doing so,we are govened by honest, good,god fearing politicians who spend their every waking hour working for us, I fell very proud and so should you be,by the way, Hugh-oxford,you will have called at a bad time,expenses fiddling now takes a lot longer,so a bit more concentration is needed,try and be a bit more thoughtful in future,yes?.

Yesterday 10:04 PM
Recommended by
3 people
My Lord Barnett (or should it be Comrade Barnett) – Presumably you’re in the Upper House and not biased about our honest, god fearing politicians?

Yesterday 10:16 PM
Recommended by
4 people
Tollie, Is he extracting the urine? I ask myself.
Real-time updating is enabled.

Yesterday 09:42 PM
Recommended by
12 people
If the link in my previous comment is to be believed it would seem that the mother in question could well be Vicky Haigh,the well known ex supermodel, also well known in the horse racing world as an ex jockey who was the first lady rider to win the military cup at Sandown and who was invited to tea with the Queen as a consequence !,She is also an ex trainer of many winners on the best courses in the land and a PR lady/ambassador for Victor Chandler,who is now widely acknowledged as the top individual bookmaker operating on British racecourses !As a confirmed ” horse racing man” I certainly know of Vicky though I have never met her.
Could such a person be the one being persecuted by the “SS” ? Well if it’s not her she can sue me,but I reckon the police did not know who they were mistreating when they dragged her out of her hospital bed after midnight so they could sling this 7 month pregnant lady into a dirty uncomfortable cell” !Maybe they were hoping to provoke a premature birth so that the “SS” could confiscate her baby?

34 minutes ago
Ian I believe it to be from what I have heard about it in the past few weeks, Its a sad state of affairs when even people like Vicky are been gagged etc.

Yesterday 09:52 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Thanks for the info.

tumper
Yesterday 09:42 PM
Recommended by
12 people
The way the police and CAFFCASS have handled this case beggars belief. (apparently) Because we are only seeing one side of the story here.
Nevertheless…if the story is accurate, there has to be a high-level inquiry into the way the police, the courts and the social care heirarchy are subverting the role of democracy.

Captain Lump Sum
Yesterday 09:38 PM
Recommended by
16 people
We are bombing Libya right now to stop this kind of persecution happening. Looks like we need to start in South Yorkshire.

Yesterday 10:17 PM
Recommended by
9 people
And the High Court Captain!.

Yesterday 09:36 PM
Recommended by
14 people
This is evil.

Yesterday 09:04 PM
Recommended by
19 people
Bout time our elected representatives reasserted the sovereignty of parliament over the family courts.

This is surely a shocking stae of affairs tha all parents should be wary of.

Blackadder2
Yesterday 09:00 PM
Recommended by
20 people
I would hope that this could be referred to the House of Commons Privileges Committee.

I see no reason why any person, be they solicitor, barrister or Judge, who is involved in attempts to restrict the right of citizens to have access to their MP ought not be imprisoned in the Tower of the House of Commons for contempt of Parliament, without limit of time.

If that were to happen, and Her Majesty had no judges left, we might find a solution to this problem.

Yesterday 08:48 PM
Recommended by
23 people
I cannot think of any justification for dragging a heavily pregnant woman FROM HER HOSPITAL BED to put her in the cells,especially as her only offence (if indeed it was an offence) was to talk to her MP !

Yesterday 08:37 PM
Recommended by
7 people
http://inquiringminds.cc/updat…

I was sent this link anonymously and I wonder if it refers to the events in Christopher’s column…….

Yesterday 09:57 PM
Recommended by
10 people
IJ, even if it isn’t, it is appalling. Why would the police knock on the door of a heavily pregnant woman at 4:00 a.m.? There is no excuse, and if the baby is harmed in any way through the stress caused by the police, then they should be made to pay. It is victimisation and says a lot about today’s police.

It is well known that Doncaster isn’t a place to bring up children, the SS mafia there are renowned for their cruelty and incompetence.

Yesterday 11:18 PM
Recommended by
3 people
“Why would the police knock on the door of a heavily pregnant woman at 4:00 a.m.?”

That’s the way the police do things under a Socialist regime.

Yesterday 11:16 PM
Recommended by
2 people
Essex SS are just as bad.

Yesterday 08:32 PM
Recommended by
16 people
Outrageous! But it should not be up to John Hemming to uphold Parliamentary privilege. That is the role of the Speaker.

What should happen is that he summons the judge and any other party to the Bar of the House, and reminds them that it is the duty of an MP to make representations to the Executive on behalf of their constituent, and anyone who interferes with this process is in contempt of Parliament.

Of course the Speaker will do no such thing, so Mr Hemming should not then feel bound by any lesser convention. He should speak out and name names. The public interest must prevail.

Yesterday 09:04 PM
Recommended by
3 people
On reflection, if the judge jails Mr Hemming and the Speaker jails the judge – who wins?

15 minutes ago
The judge should be called before the house and told to apologise on bended knee.

Yesterday 11:18 PM
Recommended by
3 people
The public.

Yesterday 08:30 PM
Recommended by
23 people
My (Labour) MP threatened to call the police because I phoned her to complain about the levels of immigration. I haven’t contacted her since.

Jackthesmilingblack
Yesterday 10:32 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Name the bitch.

AntonyUK
Yesterday 09:04 PM
Recommended by
5 people
Are you at liberty to say who she is?

Yesterday 09:46 PM
Obviously hugh_oxford isn’t. Pity!!!

Captain Lump Sum
Yesterday 09:40 PM
Recommended by
5 people
If she’s a female Labour Oxford MP there’s only one culprit, I believe.

Yesterday 10:30 PM
Recommended by
1 person
Captain, A Labour MP in Oxford? what is wrong in that city?, mind you there is a lot wrong with the other crowd also!.

Yesterday 10:21 PM
Recommended by
2 people
Of course he is, he’s in the same secure placement as Cartimandua. (But you have to humour them).

Yesterday 09:42 PM
Recommended by
5 people
Surely some part(s) of the Human Rights Law is being breached here?

And where is Cartimandua, never the same without her. She was acting quite sane in the letters area earlier.

Yesterday 11:26 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Human rights law doesn’t apply to law-abiding ethnically British tax-paying citizens.

Just try a trick like that with a black or Pakistani mother and see where it gets you, especially if they are in the country illegally or an “Asylum Seeker”.

May 24, 2010

Well.well,well Peter Traves vindicated again ( and yes he still will not accept any responsibility ) even after his sudden departure

Boss of Staffordshire social services defends team in Spanish murder ordeal

May 24 2010 by Emma McKinney, Birmingham Mail
Add a comment
Recommend
THE boss of Staffordshire Social Services has denied any blame over the two children found dead in a Spanish hotel room.
Court officials say Lianne Smith, 43, has confessed to suffocating her children Rebecca, five, and Daniel, 11 months, at the resort of Lloret de Mar last Tuesday.
On the same day the children were discovered dead, their father Martin Smith, who was on Britain’s Most Wanted list after skipping bail in January 2008, was extradited back to Britain to face charges of having sex with a girl under 16.
Lianne Smith is believed to be on suicide watch in jail in Girona, Spain, and to be eating and drinking very little.
A Girona police spokeswoman said: “She tried to commit suicide before police arrested her.”
Staffordshire Police have said the force had originally attempted to trace Mrs Smith and her daughter after they left their Lichfield home in 2007, but failed to do so. It is understood Staffordshire Social Services had been monitoring the family.
Peter Troves, whose staff face a police probe over the matter, quit as head of the department three weeks ago. He said: “At the time there was nothing to indicate the family would abscond.
“We believe our action was appropriate given our understanding of the case at the time. At no time was the daughter at risk here – our social workers did a good job.”
Mrs Smith has told officials she suffocated the children to prevent them from being taken into care when her husband was sent back to Britain.
Mr Smith appeared before Carlisle magistrates last Wednesday charged with 13 sexual offences and one of jumping bail.
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/staffordshire-news/2010/05/24/boss-of-staffordshire-social-services-defends-team-in-spanish-murder-ordeal-97319-26505561/

May 15, 2010

CHILD SNATCHING CONFERENCE IN STAFFORD MAKES THE TELEGRAPH

Britain’s child snatchers are a scandal

The UK’s system of forced adoption requires the Government’s urgent attention, says Christopher Booker

Published: 6:15PM BST 15 May 2010
Is any human instinct more fundamental than the love of a mother for her children? Last week I reported how Maureen Spalek from Liverpool had been arrested and held in a cell for 24 hours for sending a birthday card to her son, one of three children taken away from her by a family court, despite its agreeing that she was “an excellent mother”.
In Runcorn magistrates’ court on Wednesday Mrs Spalek was told she must return for a pre-trial hearing, before her criminal charge of sending a birthday card goes for trial at a Crown Court. Last month, Mrs Spalek was one of 200 mothers who gathered in Stafford to set up a group known as Child Snatching by the State. They were addressed by Ian Josephs, a businessman based in Monaco, who has championed the cause of parents whose children were unjustly removed by social workers ever since he was a Tory county councillor in the 1960s.
Related Articles
All our ministers are ‘Europe ministers’ now
Chris Huhne will ensure the coalition is soon out of power
As Mr Josephs describes on his Forced Adoptions website, he has dealt with hundreds of such harrowing cases (always being careful to check that there was no evidence of physical or emotional harm to the children). One is that of Sarah White, repeatedly arrested for attempting to contact her “stolen children”, including an instance when she was jailed for a month for waving to her son when she unexpectedly saw him across the street. Two weeks ago, she was again held in custody for five hours, after her brother posted a YouTube video describing her plight.
Julie Cipriani is another mother arrested for waving to her child in the street and forbidden from further contact after reading out in court her daughter’s loving birthday card.
When another mother threatened with having her baby abducted recently fled to Ireland, her family were repeatedly visited by police, demanding to know her whereabouts. She is now receiving much more humane treatment from Irish social services. (Britain is almost the only country in Europe that permits forced adoptions against the wishes of loving parents.)
In the Commons last October, the Tory MP Tim Yeo described a case where Suffolk social workers waited until the father was out of the house to snatch an 11-week-old baby from the arms of its distraught mother, in order to put the child out for adoption. Until recently social workers were set “adoption targets” by the government, as part of a system where it seems they, the courts and the police are too often conspiring to abduct children from loving parents in the name of what amounts to heartless “social engineering”. Few scandals call for more urgent attention by our new Parliament than this.

Published: 6:15PM BST 15 May 2010Is any human instinct more fundamental than the love of a mother for her children? Last week I reported how Maureen Spalek from Liverpool had been arrested and held in a cell for 24 hours for sending a birthday card to her son, one of three children taken away from her by a family court, despite its agreeing that she was “an excellent mother”.In Runcorn magistrates’ court on Wednesday Mrs Spalek was told she must return for a pre-trial hearing, before her criminal charge of sending a birthday card goes for trial at a Crown Court. Last month, Mrs Spalek was one of 200 mothers who gathered in Stafford to set up a group known as Child Snatching by the State. They were addressed by Ian Josephs, a businessman based in Monaco, who has championed the cause of parents whose children were unjustly removed by social workers ever since he was a Tory county councillor in the 1960s. Related ArticlesAll our ministers are ‘Europe ministers’ nowChris Huhne will ensure the coalition is soon out of powerAs Mr Josephs describes on his Forced Adoptions website, he has dealt with hundreds of such harrowing cases (always being careful to check that there was no evidence of physical or emotional harm to the children). One is that of Sarah White, repeatedly arrested for attempting to contact her “stolen children”, including an instance when she was jailed for a month for waving to her son when she unexpectedly saw him across the street. Two weeks ago, she was again held in custody for five hours, after her brother posted a YouTube video describing her plight.Julie Cipriani is another mother arrested for waving to her child in the street and forbidden from further contact after reading out in court her daughter’s loving birthday card.When another mother threatened with having her baby abducted recently fled to Ireland, her family were repeatedly visited by police, demanding to know her whereabouts. She is now receiving much more humane treatment from Irish social services. (Britain is almost the only country in Europe that permits forced adoptions against the wishes of loving parents.)In the Commons last October, the Tory MP Tim Yeo described a case where Suffolk social workers waited until the father was out of the house to snatch an 11-week-old baby from the arms of its distraught mother, in order to put the child out for adoption. Until recently social workers were set “adoption targets” by the government, as part of a system where it seems they, the courts and the police are too often conspiring to abduct children from loving parents in the name of what amounts to heartless “social engineering”. Few scandals call for more urgent attention by our new Parliament than this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7728931/Britains-child-snatchers-are-a-scandal.html

May 11, 2010

Martin Narey Through Vicarious Liability Martin Narey has contributed to the destruction of vulnerable children’s lives through his negligence

PRESS RELEASE 8 SEPTEMBER 2009
“GOVERNMENT FUNDED CHILD ABUSE”

Chief Executive of Dr Barnardos, Martin Narey, employed Neville Husband: Prison officer and notorious child sex offender from Medomsley YOI.

The national press is awash with the disturbing comments from Martin Narey, Chief Executive of Dr Barnardos. He stated: “Take more babies away from bad parents at birth”

Last year Dr Barnardos income topped £215 million. They are responsible for the care of approx 100,000 children. This equates to an income of £215,000 per child per year.

Martin Narey was Governor at both Frankland maximum-security prison and Deerbolt Borstal for young offenders (both in Co Durham), when a known paedophile ‘Neville Husband’ was employed as a senior officer at Frankland and seconded as an officer at Deerbolt. Husband had been forced to leave Medomsley Detention Centre for young offenders after torturing and abusing boys. He was subsequently convicted and is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence. Prior to his conviction Husband was also a Church Minister for the United Reformed Church. Many of the victims have not received justice yet and Husband is due to be released from prison next month.

Cravings for young boys
Statements given to police by prison officers who worked with Husband suggest suspicions were rife about his cravings for young boys, who he went on to molest in the kitchens he ran.
One statement by an officer who served at Medomsley in 1978, reads: “I don’t know why but all the governors thought very highly of Husband and seemed to look after him.”

As a Prison Governor, Martin Narey either ignored or was grossly negligent by failing to observe Husband’s employment records: That he was arrested in 1967 whilst at Portland young offenders centre for the illegal importation of homosexual pornography. That the case was silenced and Husband was moved to Medomsley Detention Centre where he continued to import pornography direct into the Centre. That he was investigated by the police on numerous occasions but without further actions. That Husband then embarked on his horrific sexual torture of countless young boys. These boys are now men and want their story told.

Victims want their stories told
The victims of Neville Husband formed themselves into a group: justice4survivors. They recently approached award winning working class film director Bill Maloney (who has himself stepped forward as a victim of abuse whilst in YOIs and Borstals back in the 1970s – his whole family were abused in care). Maloney was horrified but not surprised by their stories of abuse and injustice as the hands of the UK Establishment. He decided to work with them to make a hard-hitting gritty documentary ‘Adam Rickwood & The Medomsley Heroes’ without any funding. He stated, “We’re going to let these brave men tell their stories without sanitizing the documentary for the middle-class driven media”. The victims are currently pushing for a public enquiry.

Adam brings the horrors up to date
Whilst researching Medomsley detention centre (now Hassockfield Secure Training Centre) Maloney discovered that as recently as 2004 Adam Rickwood (14), became the youngest prisoner to commit suicide in the UK. Adam’s family and friends all believe that Adam did not kill himself and that there has been a massive cover-up; this is truthfully and emotionally displayed in the documentary. Adam was found hanging in his cell with a broken nose, broken wrist and covered in bruises.

99.9 per cent of young offenders in the UK stem from the lower working classes. As Bill Maloney states in his documentary “You can’t keep bashing our kids like this, we’re not going to allow it any more”.

Now Martin Narey wants to rip lower working class baby’s from their mothers at birth. The effects on Mothers and Fathers and their families for the loss of their babies will be devastating. The huge funds invested into Dr Barnardos each year should be put to helping these young parents, it is immoral to suggest taking these young children into care when the care system continues to abuse them and profit from them. Successful and trusted families from within these peoples’ own culture and communities should be funded to adopt a support role to help ‘bad parents’ by befriending them, gaining their trust and encouraging and motivating them forward, they would also be better placed than an overworked inexperienced graduate social worker to recognise whether a child is in danger or neglected. Further funding should also be supplied to support the education, environment and welfare of the family.

Apparently, Philippa Stroud of the thinktank Centre for Social Justice reacted cautiously to Narey’s comments. “What we recommend is the model of the mother and baby going into care, filling that hole and giving the whole family a chance. “With child protection, all the legislation is actually in place: it’s the implementation that is the issue.” – Even this recommendation would require huge bureaucratic funding. The money needs to be spent at source – at the home and within the family with trusted support and guidance.

Maloney’s outspoken and unsanitised documentaries appear to be too controversial for major broadcast networks, but the public need to know what is happening to their taxes when private security companies such as Serco are looking after our children and receiving approx £178,000 per year per child.

And Dr Barnardos? A charity that has the Queen as it’s Patron and which the majority of the population appear to respect and believe in, acquires its funding of £215,000 per child per year through, government funded fees and grants, property development, donations/gifts and fundraising, and trading.

How is this right?
Unemployed parents receiving statutory benefits receive on average an additional £3,744 per year towards the care of one child (calculating child tax credits together with Child benefit). Plus one off payments in the child’s first year totaling approx £440. Dr Barnardos receive £215,000 per year per child.

Through Vicarious Liability Martin Narey has contributed to the destruction of vulnerable children’s lives through his negligence. He should not be telling us that our children should be abducted at birth.

The trailer for Maloney’s documentary ‘Adam Rickwood & The Medomsley Heroes’ is now available for viewing at: http://www.pienmashfilms.com or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D34cs…e=channel_page
Further information sources:
THE MEDOMSLEY HEROES: http://justice4survivors.com
ADAM RICKWOOD: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20…stice.politics
MARTIN NAREY STATEMENT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20…care-barnardos
MARTIN NAREY CV: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20…ietysupplement
NEVILLE HUSBAND: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north…name_page.html
NEVILLE HUSBAND:http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north…name_page.html

For further information, or to arrange for an interview with Bill Maloney please contact: Tel: 07710 416470 Email: pieandmashfilms@hotmail.com

May 8, 2010

blatant lies were told to the Panel by social workers

Panel Minutes

I had a salutary reminder recently of how useful it can be getting hold of minutes of internal meetings held within the local authority which are not routinely disclosed. Thanks to the Guardian in the case who badgered the local authority to produce the minutes of the Adoption Panel the court was able to see the natural and unvarnished attitude of the social work team towards a parent in the case. I can think of a number of other cases in which these sorts of minutes have been useful. In one instance an Adoption Team Manager gave evidence that a child could be placed for adoption within 6 months. The following day we received the minutes of the adoption needs meeting which showed that her realistic time estimate in relation to the particular child was actually that it would take at least a year to place her. In two other cases the Panel minutes revealed that blatant lies were told to the Panel by social workers (for example, that a child had been injured when they had not and that the care plan approved by the court did not involve a recommendation for direct contact post adoption). Strategy meeting minutes can also be useful in identifying the approach of professionals to a case from the very outset. Running records and documents which follow the trail of internal decision making within the local authority can also be extremely helpful. There is clear case law reminding local authorities of their duties to disclose documents and in theory, according to Munby J, a suitably experienced legal practitioner from the local authority should identify any relevant records from the files and disclose them. When this case was first reported there was a flurry of requests for extensive and arguably unnecessarily burdensome automatic disclosure. Whilst things have settled down it is always worth seeking specific disclosure if you start to get a feeling in your bones that strange decisions have been made or that a social worker has formed a view that does not seem to marry up with your impression of the client.

Cafcass & fact finding

Speaking as one who is having enormous difficulties managing my own caseload I was interested to learn yesterday of a novel approach being adopted in the Stoke area to managing the deluge of cases in which domestic violence allegations are made and which would ordinarily be listed for a fact finding hearing. The pressure on the courts is such that Cafcass Officers are apparently being instructed to express an opinion on allegations and counter-allegations made by parents in order to assist the court and avoid the need for a hearing. In my view this is very dangerous territory. This is an effectively judicial function for which Cafcass Officers have no training and unless they are extremely careful they run the risk of making judgements without having the full facts or the skills to challenge the evidence being presented to them by one or other parent.

Has anyone else come across this approach in other parts of the country? The District Judge in the case in which the issue emerged expressed disapproval of the practice for reasons which will be obvious to family practitioners. He also picked up another important practice issue: the welfare checklist has been deleted from the new style analysis & recommendations pro forma with the obvious danger that the statutory criteria may end up being ignored by those charged with advising the court.

Posted by jacquig at 15:57 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: 

May 2, 2010

Dear Dear Lord Justice Wall – President of the High Court Family Division

Sheena Williams

2 May 2010

Dear Dear Lord Justice Wall – President of the High Court Family
Division

Having forwarded a copy of the following email. I would like to
know if judges are paid for their contributions or if this is done
on a voluntary basis. If paid please provide the sums involved
encompassing all judges and records held.

I would also like to invite you and/or others to attend any of the

‘Child snatching by the State’ events that will be occurring
throughout the country. You are most welcome to put forward the
stance from the family courts perspective and will meet many
families with ‘first-hand knowledge of children’s social services
and the family courts’ who have shown great courage in adversity,
yet still show compassion and understanding for others, safe in
their knowledge that through love there is no separation.

I hope you will forgive this invitation being placed in the public
domain, but feel it is within the best interests of honesty
openness & transparency, in keeping with the justice system fully
engaging with families whose decisions affect so many children &
families lives.

Article – Family Courts ‘jolly good fun’ ?‏

Dear Judge Isobel Plumstead

I am absolutely disgusted to read the following article sent to me
by distraught parents who have had their children stolen by social
services in secret closed family courts; having attended the recent
‘Child snatching by the state’ conference in Stafford.

http://www.bemyparent.org.uk/features/it…

I have no reason to doubt these parents & grandparents accounts/
experiences of social services and the family courts, having
resigned from the Conservative party due to Conservative Kent
County Council taking my own offspring of 4 young granddaughters
for the exact same fate.

Many like myself bitterly regret seeking the advice & assistance of
social services and believe they should come with a government
‘health warning’

Could it be that I was hoping to raise the exact same concerns,
encompassing the lack of support for families by social services
and transparency & accountability within the system?

Forgive me for not finding it ‘ jolly good fun’ to be removed from
the court (without my consent) and my granddaughter’s lives
forever, through fear of social services canvassing for my own
young children. Having been lucky enough to be advised against
being bullied into‘ psychological testing’ by a gentleman who also
attended the conference called Ian Josephs an Ex Kent County
Councillor (Conservative)

You may find his website of interest

http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduct…

Nor do I believe the children will find it ‘ jolly good fun’ when
they realise as adults what has happened to them; many have been
abused within the ‘care’ system and separated from their siblings,
to then be given to strangers rather than blood kin, who dearly
love & care for them.

What I am certain of, is that they will want to know who is
ultimately responsible.

regards

Cllr Sheena Williams ( Independent – Maidstone Borough Councillor)

Link to thisSend follow up

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/article_family_courts_jolly_good#incoming-84164

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 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 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/

March 31, 2010

HYPOCRISY AT STOKE FAMILY COURT CHILDREN PUT AT RISK BY PROFESSIONALS

Ok being the kind of person I am I thought I would while waiting to be called to court enjoy a nice cup of coffee in the public cafeteria in the court.

After having sight of my childs social worker ( who in all fairness ) isnt that bad and her manager Cruella De Vil I decided it may be better to protect my unborn child from germs and infection to sit away from them at the opposite end of the cafe.

I sat behind some ladies sat in suits who i thought were probably discussing mundane things like the weather ( or at least hoped they were ) As i had previously bought to the matter of a judge that in my own case before Staffordshire Social Services , Cafcass and their legal reps were discussing my case in this public cafeteria which is in fact CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Needless to say the judge punished them accordingly ( NOT ) mmmmmmmm A judge swears an oath the uphold the law doesnt he ?

It seems to be at STOKE court a judge will not uphold the law against any professionals only parents when the parents have not even broken the law they are gagged and threatened with contempt of court.

Anyway moving on i started to take notes of this ( what should have been ) mundane conversation

These are as follows

There is an adoption case going through the court which relates to 2 boys .The family wishing to adopt the boys are called the Carters they are foster carers . On the 18th May there is a panel date for adoption.One of the suited ladies said ” I may be able to exert a little influence over the panel but only a little as im a legal advisor ”

WHAT A PROFESSIONAL TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE PANEL ? NO ! THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN SURELY ?

They discussed the pregnant mothers due date as being 1st June.

Comments were made about judge Duggan who sits at this court.

These were ” Duggan is pleasant but he likes to have control, has his own way of thinking ” ” I was here all day yesterday trying to argue the toss with Duggan ”

WHAT A JUDGE THAT THE PROFESSIONALS ARE SCARED OF WHO WONT JUST RUBBER STAMP THEIR APPLICATIONS ? NO ! SURELY NOT ?

They discussed the boys and said ” they are staying with the carters ! …. well thats the plan ”

One of these ladies said she hasn’t done an adoption for years where the child is adopted by their 1st birthday Ryan is nearly 2 now.

The guardian began to say ” despite her stupidity ….. ”

I didnt catch the rest but it was relating to the mother of the children

Then discussing someone else one social worker said guess what they have called the baby ?

She whispered something to her colleague they both laughed and the social worker said she had been taking the micky to her colleagues by saying what are they going to call the next one gonnorhea

This social worker then went on to talk about her twin boys Benjamin and Joesph well if shes naming clients children i dont see why hers shouldnt be named.

Anyway the Carters want to adopt the two boys and the guardian supports this.

The mother is not opposing ( has probably been bullied ) but on the grounds that she can have contact 4 times a year.

They discussed whittling that down to less. The Guardian commented ” 4 times a year is an awful lot ”

They said they dont want the Carters to be in a spat with mother about contact.

Deborah is the guardian to this case.

Other names mentioned were Caroline Crosby Local Authority Solicitor

I believe the case is CHESIRE COUNTY COUNCIL V FALLOWS

Now if the mother gets to read this you need to bring this up against these professionals .

They are in serious trouble I know your name and that of your children being adopted but i have kept your privacy intact something these blabbermouth professionals have no regard to.

SO WHEN IT IS RAISED THAT FAMILY COURTS SHOULD REMAIN SECRET AND IT IS THESE PROFESSIONALS THAT SAY ITS FOR THE CHILDRENS BEST INTERESTS

THE FACT IS THEY DO NOT GIVE A TOSS ABOUT PROTECTING THE CHILDREN AND FAMILES AS SEEN ABOVE AND ALSO IN MY CASE IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THEMSELVES.

ANY JOURNALISTS THAT ARE HAVING TROUBLE ACCESSING FAMILY COURT HEARINGS OR ADOPTIONS JUST GO AND SIT IN THE PUBLIC CAFETERIA AT THE LOCAL FAMILY COURT OR WHEREVER YOU SEE A GROUP OF SUITED PROFESSIONAL LOSERS IN DISCUSSION.

March 28, 2010

Twins who were beaten, abused, starved & driven to the brink of suicide by their FOSTER PARENTS TODAYS NEWS AND GUESS WHAT STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL DID NOTHING

Twins who were beaten, abused, starved & driven to the brink of suicide by their FOSTER PARENTS
COMPENSATION AT LAST FOR…
Laura Armstrong
Twin sisters Helen Stuckey and Sarah Walsh hugged each other with joy last week – unlike when they were little girls and hugged as they trembled with fear.
The reason for last week’s quiet embrace was that the 26-year-old sisters have finally won compensation from a council that put them in the care of the foster parents from hell.
From the age of two, Helen and Sarah were regularly beaten by the couple who should have given them a loving, protected life.
Both girls, who have bravely waived their anonymity, were also forced to perform sex acts on each other while their vile foster brother watched.
And Sarah was sexually abused by their twisted foster dad between the age of five and 16.
Staffordshire county council staff visited the children frequently but failed to spot warning signs.
These included both sisters trying to commit suicide DOZENS of times, SEVEN ignored reports of physical abuse and THREE disregarded admissions by their stepfather that he and his wife beat the kids.
Social services were unaware of the sexual abuse but Helen and Sarah claim it would never have happened if they been removed from the evil family’s care.
Helen told The People: “This battle was never about winning a large amount of money. For us it was our way of getting social services to admit blame for what happened to us.
“They will never admit blame – we understand that now – but in our minds this pay-out suggests they at least accept they were negligent.
“Now we can fully move on and try to forget those years of hell.”
Survived
The girls were placed with the foster parents in 1985 after their mother – a schizophrenic – was unable to look after them.
Almost immediately after they were taken in, the physical abuse started.
Sarah said: “If we hadn’t had each other, I honestly don’t think we would have survived. We were beaten and abused from almost day one.”
In 1988, social services admitted they were worried that the foster brother – then aged 15- was looking after the five-year-old twins during the day. But NO action was taken.
In 1993 the foster parents admitted to a social worker that the mother smacked them although carers are NOT supposed to use physical punishment. Again no action was taken.
Next year both parents agreed to stop using corporal punishment. This did NOT happen.
Shockingly, the girls weren’t only being physically abused. From 1988 until 1996 Sarah and Helen were forced to perform sex acts while their foster brother watched. Sarah was also sexually abused by her foster dad.
Sarah said: “We never did anything about it because we were too scared.”
Helen added: “Despite everything we have been through, we don’t want to be seen as victims because we know we are lucky to have escaped our foster family.
“But there must be thousands of helpless children out there trapped in abusive families.
“And one day we hope to change the law so that social services staff are required to take responsibility for the mistakes they make.”
Sarah continued: “Our foster mum was a nasty drinker and if she was drunk or hungover she would go after us with anything she could get.
“Whenever she did use her fists, she would wet them so the punch would hurt more, and then pull us upstairs by our hair.
“I wanted so badly for the beatings to stop, but we were frightened to say anything in case the social workers took us away and split us up.
“So instead we learnt to say nothing when we were beaten. And when it was over and we were alone, we would sit and cry together.
“I was so unhappy and frightened but knowing Helen was there holding my hand helped.”
Helen said: “It wasn’t just the beatings, it was the humiliation. We used to be called the waterworks by classmates because we’d always be crying when we arrived at school.
“And we never made friends because other children were too frightened to come to our house. They had seen the beatings, such as when our foster mum pulled Sarah outside by her shirt collar and slammed her up against a brick wall, screaming that she was a slag and telling her to p*** off.
“Other times we’d be banned from eating for ages, or made to eat until we were sick, just for trivial reasons. I remember once as a child eating Stork margarine with sugar on top because I was so hungry.
Desperate
“I didn’t care that it made me feel sick, I was just so desperate that I just shovelled it in like an animal.”
The People knows the identity of the twins’ foster family but has decided not to name them for legal reasons.
Their foster mother is still inolved with children while their foster brother now has children of his own. Their foster father died of cancer seven years ago. Helen said: “It scares me to think that our foster mum is still working with young children.
“In the 15 years I lived with her she never once showed Sarah or me a shred of pity, let alone any love.
“If we sobbed when she hurt us, she would just hit harder.”
Sarah said: “The things our foster brother made us do was more confusing than anything else at first. But when my foster dad abused me, I felt sick and alone.”
Helen, tortured by the belief that she was to blame for her sister’s suffering, took an overdose of pills and cough mixture.
Sarah was thrown out by her foster mum when the twins were 16. The homeless teenager began cutting her wrists and was hospitalised after four overdoses.
She said: “After years of abuse I really believed what our foster parents had told us – we were worthless and there was no point in living. It was only when my foster dad died in 2003 I finally felt that I could open up about everything.”
In 2006 Helen and Sarah reported the abuse to police.
Their foster mum and brother were questioned but released without charge after the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was a lack of evidence of the brother’s abuse and the time limit to prosecute the mother for assault had expired.
So the twins – now mums themselves – launched a claim against Staffordshire County Council.
Now they have received £70,000 compensation three weeks before the case was due to be heard in court.
The compensation is NOT for the abuse but for social services breaching their duty of care.
Sarah said: “Hearing the settlement had been reached was like having a 10-ton weight lifted.”
Helen added: “I still see our foster mum in the street sometimes and she laughs if she catches sight of me. But now I can put all the anger that I used to feel behind me.”
Staffordshire County Council said: “We made an out-of-court settlement but do not accept liability for the allegations which have never been proved. We have, however, offered the claimants help and support.
“The fostering service has come a very long way since the 1980s. We were inspected by Ofsted in 2009 and our fostering service was judged outstanding.”
Solicitor Richard Scorer of Manchester law firm Pannone said: “We were able to find information to support Helen and Sarah’s case.
“Although no amount of money can ever compensate for what they went through, I am pleased to have played a part in getting them justice .”
laura.armstrong@people.co.uk

http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=twins-who-were-beaten-abused-starved-driven-to-the-brink-of-suicide-by-their-foster-parents%26method=full%26objectid=22143896%26siteid=93463-name_page.html

Bungling Incompetent Staffordshire Social Worker Idiots at it again

FOSTERING FILES LEFT IN STREET
Saturday, March 27, 2010, 09:20
CONFIDENTIAL information held by social services about children in care has been found on a pavement by a passer-by.
Dozens of sensitive Stoke-on-Trent City Council documents were discovered on a memory stick left in Potteries Way, Hanley, yesterday.
The social services records of foster carers, family court proceedings, parenting assessments, child custody arrangements and the psychological history of youngsters were all included in the files.
The stick was found by IT consultant Gary Fox and reported to The Sentinel before one of our reporters handed it to the council. Now officials have launched an urgent investigation into how the security breach happened.
It is not known whether the social worker had permission to take the memory stick away from the council’s offices, or when it went missing.
But the information on the memory stick was not encrypted, which is against the council’s own policy.
A council spokesman said: “The safety of children in our care is our priority. We have procedures for ensuring that confidential and sensitive data is kept as secure as possible.
“We will conduct a thorough investigation to determine the circumstances in which the data was lost.
“We thank The Sentinel for returning the data, as situations such as this require immediate attention. The device has been put in a safe place.”
Mr Fox, who works in Hanley and lives in Stafford, had picked up the memory stick, which was covered in mud, because a blank one is worth about £10 in a shop.
The 53-year-old said: “I put the memory stick in a computer and realised there were about 40 documents on it.
“I was shocked by the vast amount of confidential information and the fact it wasn’t even password protected.
“Public bodies gather information on everyone, but it seems can’t be trusted to keep it safe.
“I handed the memory stick to The Sentinel, because people should be aware of how public bodies look after confidential information.”
The council will report the breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), responsible for regulating the use of personal information.
An ICO spokesman said: “We may serve an enforcement notice if an organisation has failed to comply with any of the data protection principles.
“We have statutory power to impose a financial penalty if there has been a serious breach of data protection.”
The security breach has shocked foster carers who rely on such confidential information being kept secure.
Carer Phyllis Hulme, aged 62, of Meir, said: “Everything to do with foster care is meant to be highly confidential.
“We are always told not to mention children’s names in meetings or discuss information with anyone. Somebody has slipped up badly here.”
Individual councils are responsible for creating their own data protection policies
NOW I JUST WANT TO ADD I HAVE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF FOSTER CARERS LEAKED BY THEM BUT NOONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE !!!!

February 19, 2010

STAFFORDSHIRE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOUND GUILTY

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

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

By Lyn Grainger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the history now for the present

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog at WordPress.com.