UKCORRUPTFAMILYCOURTS

December 8, 2012

CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE !

Advertisements

December 4, 2012

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

They are now being sued never ever give up x

EXPECT ME !

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

Mother tries to kill herself in court during care proceedings.

Noone actually gives a damn about the living nightmare that family court proceedings bring. The aftermath leaves families destroyed . So cruel is the system that parents are tossed by the roadside after being devoured in proceedings . During proceedings they are sent for psycholgical assessments where many are given diagnoses they never had before , none of the experts assessing them comment that their current mental state may well be as a result of losing their children. If the parent breaks down or is emotional during proceedings this is seen as a sign of their instability rather than a normal reaction to the abnormal stressors and should a parent kill themselves after losing their  children you will hear the social workers saying ‘ see that proves our point told you she was unstable.

There is absolutely no help provided for these parents or no recognition of their pain . The lucky ones find support from fellow parents who have been through the same on social networking sites and forums.

As for the children , well i guess we will see the impact of this on them over the coming years …….

Mum tried to kill herself in court during care review

Mum tried to kill herself in court during care review

A DESPERATE mother tried to kill herself in court in the middle of a losing battle to stop her two-year-old daughter being taken into care.

Two barristers scrambled to stop the woman swallowing a handful of paracetamol pills, as she fought to prove herself a competent mother at Derby County Court.

She was taken to hospital and was still there the following day when Judge James Orrell ordered her little girl to be taken into care.

In his ruling last year, he said Derbyshire County Council had been concerned about the “unhygienic and unsafe” condition of the family home.

The woman yesterday mounted a last-ditch bid at London’s Civil Appeal Court to overturn the ruling, arguing it had been unfair to reach the decision in her absence.

But, while recognising the woman’s “huge love” for her daughter, Lord Justice Thorpe said there could be “only one possible outcome” to the case and rejected her appeal.

Ruling that the mother’s appeal had no real prospect of success, he said: “Sad as it is for the mother, I have no alternative but to reject her application for permission to appeal.”

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Mum-tried-kill-court-care-review/article-3581449-detail/article.html

Suicide watch would have saved patient
By Paul Jenkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother’s Death: Suicide Not Ruled Out

3:57pm UK, Saturday March 17, 2007

Suicide has not been ruled out as the cause of death of solicitor Sally Clark, who was wrongly jailed for the murder of her two sons.

180 sally clark & husband releasedMrs Clark with her husband

A Home Office pathologist is due to carry out a post mortem examination on Monday on the body of Mrs Clark, 42, who was found dead at her home in Hatfield Peverel, Essex.

She had been found guilty of the murder of her sons – eight-week-old Harry and 11-week-old Christopher – following a trial at Chester Crown Court in 1999.

But she was cleared by the Court of Appeal in 2003 following one of the most high-profile legal cases of recent times.

Essex Police have refused to speculate on the possible cause of her death. Sources said they were keeping an open mind at this stage but suicide was not being ruled out.

A spokeswoman for Essex Ambulance Service said an ambulance and rapid response vehicle were sent but nothing could be done to save Mrs Clark.

Sue Stapeley, the Clark family’s solicitor, said although Mrs Clark was not suffering from any kind of disease, she was not “in the best of health”.

A familystatement described Mrs Clark as a “loving and talented wife, mother, daughter and friend” who will be “greatly missed”.

It read: “Sally was released in 2003 having been wrongfully imprisoned for more than three years, falsely accused of the murder of her two sons.

“Sadly, she never fully recovered from the effects of this appalling miscarriage of justice.”

Angela Cannings, wrongly convicted of killing two of her babies, said she was “shocked” and “angry” by the news.

Mrs Cannings spent spent 18 months in prison before her life sentence for murder was quashed. She criticised the authorities for providing no support for women accused, then cleared, of taking the life of their child.

“I’m really speechless, I’m so angry. This lady suffered so much, now she’s died – I’m just shocked and stunned,” she told Sky News.

On appeal, Mrs Clark was found to have been wrongly convicted of the murders after new medical evidence emerged which had not been presented at her trial.

Professor Sir Roy Meadow gave evidence during her trial claiming the probability of two natural unexplained cot deaths in the family was 73 million-to-one.

The figure was disputed by the Royal Statistical Society and other medical experts who said the odds of a second cot death in a family were around 200-to-one.

Sir Roy was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck off the medical register.

However, both of these decisions were overturned on appeal at the High Court.

Mrs Clark’s family used to live in Wilmslow, Cheshire, but moved south to Chelmsford when she was imprisoned in Essex.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641256260

 

Teenage mother found hanged days after discovering her baby had been adopted

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

Last updated at 3:24 PM on 1st June 2011

 

Tragic: Annabelle Lee Morris hanged herself when she found out that her son (face blanked) had been adopteTragic: Annabelle Lee Morris hanged herself when she found out that her son (face blanked) had been adopted

A tragic teenage mother’s body was found hanged days after she discovered her baby had been adopted by another family.

Annabelle Lee Morris, 19, could not cope with her son being taken into care and then put up for adoption.

Her father, Thomas James Morris, found her in her bedroom on March 18 last year – nine days after she found out that her son had new adoptive parents, York Coroner’s Court was told.

The authorities had intervened as she was struggling to look after him herself.

Speaking after the inquest, her cousin, Lorna Dawber, said: ‘She adored her son and had she accepted the help when it was there her future would have been completely different. In time she would have got there.

‘That was the one thing in life that was hers, she absolutely worshipped him.’

She said Annabelle would not have put her family through that deliberately.

‘She was a good soul and she had a good heart,’ she said.

The inquest heard that the child was taken into foster care when he was less than a year old.

Annabelle, from York, was still allowed to see him a few times a week, but when a psychologist raised further serious concerns, steps were taken to have the baby adopted.

 

Although it was arranged for Annabelle to meet mental health workers in 2009, she did not attend an appointment.

She saw her son, then 15 months old, for the final time in January 2010. At the time of her death she was on a doctor’s waiting list to see a counsellor.

Prior to the adoption, her social worker, John Corden, said Annabelle was ‘ambivalent’ about accepting the support offered to her as this would involve ‘putting boundaries around her lifestyle’.

But he said that he and other colleagues had been impressed by the ‘high quality of interaction’ between mother and child and that she had been ‘dignified and honest’ in her work with social services.

Mr Corden said ‘I had frequent discussions with Annabelle about the way the case was going. She never suggested to me that if adoption were the outcome she would harm herself.

‘Annabelle was blessed with a warm and benign personality. She could present herself as a well functioning and capable young lady.

‘In the fullness of time, that may have been a considerable asset to her.’

Coroner Donald Coverdale recorded an open verdict and said the cause of her death was asphyxia due to hanging.

Noting that she had strong support from a loving family and from social services, he said: ‘Miss Morris was a 19-year-old with a number of problems relating back to childhood.

‘In recent times she had gone through the trauma of having her child adopted.

‘The final meeting with her child had been in January and that time must have been the most difficult of all.

‘It seems to me that she had time to reflect on the unhappy course of events culminating in the adoption. My best guess is that what has happened was an impulsive act, it could be described as a cry for help.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393059/Teenager-mother-hanged-just-days-discovering-baby-adopted.html#ixzz1O6V1BMx1

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 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).

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 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”.

April 11, 2011

Miscarriages of Justice in Contemporary Child Protection:a brief history and proposals for change Dr Lynne Wrennall

Miscarriages of Justice in Contemporary Child Protection:a brief history and proposals for changeÓPresentation by Dr Lynne Wrennall to the All Party Group on Abuse InvestigationsAttlee Suite, Portcullis House2.12.2004Dedication
I dedicate this paper to Victoria Climbie, to the children we have failed and to the process of becoming civilized. By civilization, I mean the process of getting things done without harming people.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the considerable advice and guidance I received in preparing this paper. Many people contributed directly, indirectly and through the literature. I would also like to acknowledge all the sources cited in the Joint Statement.
Systemic Reform
This paper addresses the questions: what is wrong with the Child Protection system? What are the indicators of the need for change? Which changes will solve the problem?
In this paper, I intend to argue that the Child Protection system is harming children, families and communities. The failure to appropriately act on genuine reports of abuse and the pursuit of false allegations, are seen as two sides of the same coin. This is the problem of too many false positives and false negatives. The causes are inter-related and the solutions must focus on both sides of the problem.
The rapid expansion of the Child Protection discourse has resulted in a loss of focus. Too many normal, trivial and misinterpreted factors are accounted into Child Protection investigations. The general public quite rightly expects Child Protection to focus on genuine cases of child abuse and neglect, not to be involved in general issues in child rearing, health and social care. That Child Protection has been unable to retain the focus on abuse and neglect is the source of the crisis of credibility that the discourse now experiences.
This loss of focus is also linked to adverse health and social impacts. Too many families feel terrorized out of accessing services for their children and for themselves. Social exclusion is the consequence.
The misdiagnosis of abuse also means that children do not receive the appropriate health and social care to which they are legally entitled. In some cases, the result is that children are dying. Professionals are increasingly aware that referring children to Social Services may result in children and families being harmed rather than helped.
Unexplained health problems have been interpreted as abuse and the burden of proof has been reversed. Families rather than doctors have been forced to try to explain why their child was unwell. Unexplained infant death has become an area prone to miscarriages of Justice. As the number of infant and child deaths declines, the proportionate significance of commercially, financially and politically sensitive deaths is likely to increase. This matter must be squarely addressed. There is a very real danger that undisclosed and undisclosable causes of illness and death lead to miscarriages of justice involving wrongful conviction and removal of children from their families.
Wildly inaccurate markers of abuse, draw families into the Child Protection net. Yet cases of serious reported abuse are ignored. Families claim that the potential for Child Protection powers to be mis-used leaves their children unprotected against harm and exploitation. The context is one in which unvalidated models, frameworks, theories, techniques and tests are generating serious adverse health and social impacts. Within this context, Child Protection powers are detoured into purposes which are unconnected with the needs of children. A pattern of discredited approaches linked to inaccurate targeting and pervasive miscarriages of justice legitimates the claim that systemic reform is required.
Some diagnoses and tests have become almost emblematic of the distortions and distractions that have blighted Child Protection. Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy/Fabricated or Induced Illness (MSbP/FII) has attained a particular status as a grab bag of myths, mystifications and superstitions. This diagnosis is particularly available for mis-use because it’s markers fall within the broad range of normalacy. Almost anyone could be conceptualized as falling within the diagnostic criteria. MSbP/FII is believed to be associated with large scale miscarriages of justice because the allegation is located in narrative spin and requires no actual evidence of abuse. It joins the long line of discredited approaches to Child Protection, though it’s ambit may be greater than all the other categories of misdiagnosis.
As a closed system, Child Protection has not been able to hear and to respond adequately, to the feedback which has been aroused over more than two decades of criticism. Violation of the privacy of service users co-exists with secrecy over the everyday practices of the discourse. There is grave concern that the secrecy of the Child Protection discourse has concealed and encouraged malpractice by professionals. There is a body of evidence demonstrating that secrecy has concealed child endangerment within the Child Protection system. So deep is the loss of trust now experienced towards the Child Protection discourse that the aphorism, everybody makes mistakes, but doctors bury theirs is increasingly being replaced with, everybody makes mistakes but fostering and adoption conceal the evidence.
The current model of Child Protection in Britain asks professionals to talk amongst themselves but has silenced service users.  This model became an article of faith in UK Child Protection though, like other features of the system, it is without an evidence base. Service users are unable to directly communicate the harm which is done, because to do so would be to risk further punitive action. The direct feedback received by the system thereby understates the harm that is occurring. Social Workers are aware that the Child Protection system is doing harm, but they do not receive the evidence of the full extent of the harm which is occurring. Service Users eventually broke the silence.
Let’s take an example of a service: Alcoholics Anonymous. It’s called Alcoholics ANONYMOUS for very good reason, because if people’s anonymity and confidentiality is not guaranteed, many people will not access the service. In Britain, the problem is that people are afraid that if they access services they will have their children taken from them. If they don’t get the help they need then social problems are not solved and we are all the poorer for that.
However, to know what is wrong with Child Protection, we must know why and I am indebted to Eileen Munro for focusing me on this. Why does the system entertain false allegations and fail to protect children who are genuinely being abused and neglected? Harker and Kendall from the Institute of Public Policy Research have acknowledged a truth that Britain has taken a long time to accept, that the role expectations of forensic investigator and social worker are mutually contradictory. Combining these roles has meant that neither is done well.
The role of forensic investigator and gatherer of intelligence has eclipsed the role of social worker to such a high degree that little actual social work takes place. British children and families have tended to receive police work performed by social workers rather than social work, recognizable by any international standards.
Britain is almost alone in adopting a model of Child Welfare in which these roles are combined. It is not the only country, but one of the few. Social workers have long been aware of the tensions and contradictions between the roles of carer and controller. The dictum, “we sometimes control because we care,” quoted in the literature, was meant to resolve the contradiction. But putting words together in the same sentence is not the same as resolving the problem of irreconcilable role expectations.
The countries which have combined the roles of forensic investigator and social worker in the same personnel, in the same agencies are the countries whose Child Protection systems face the greatest crises of credibility. In Britain, the emphasis has been on proof rather than prevention, such an emphasis is not likely to engender support for the system.
Blending of the care and control functions is also known as linking social control and service provision. Service provision has suffered in the bargain. Large expenditure on intelligence gathering, assessment and surveillance has concealed the impoverishment of expenditure on genuine service provision. Service users and social workers alike, lament the lack of investment in genuine services for families. For fundholders though, something I have termed “nombyism,” the Not On My Budget phenomena takes over. “The service is great idea, but not on my budget.” [A phenomena similar to “Nimbyism,” Not In My Back Yard.]
Forgive me for turning to accountancy, but the Child Protection discourse is strongly dominated by the disciplines of accountancy and law. It makes short term financial sense for fundholders to opt for rapid forced closed adoption, rather than to invest in supplementary services to families in difficulty and in universal provision of preventative services. Rapid forcible closed adoption is an example of financial short termism. However, a full health and social audit would probably demonstrate false economy. Cost cutting on one budget, creates expense on another. Rapid closed forced adoption is probably an example of those small rationalities that together, work against the larger rationality. Similarly, undereducated and untrained staff offered short term budgetary relief. It is time we started to count the cost.
Authoritarian practices in Child Protection centred on control, surveillance, issuing of threats and orders, and severing children’s contact with their families of origin have been counter-productive to the best interests of children. Some of the most vulnerable children of all, are double orphans and to deprive children of their families of origin, de facto creates these children as double orphans. This is what the Children’s Act 1989 aimed to prevent, but the Act has been widely subverted, due to financial conflicts of interest.
A small minority of children removed from their families of origin find loving adopting parents, but fully one quarter of adopted children are returned to the Local Authority. Many children in the “Care” system are under protected against iatrogenic abuse and suffer very adverse outcomes. False allegations of child abuse and authoritarian approaches to families harm children.
We need to face some uncomfortable truths. We need to acknowledge that the Child Protection agenda has been hijacked by interests entirely unconnected with the best interests of children. We need to acknowledge that Child Protection has become a battleground in which the professions fight for their own interests. The bodies and lives of children and families have become the terrain in which they fight their small wars out.
The claim that “the interests of the child are paramount” has become a euphemism for ulterior motives and unacknowledged sectional interests. When strategies which mis-use Child Protection powers for ulterior motives become destructive to children and families, remedy and reform are appropriately sought.
Summary: What is Wrong?Irreconcilable and unclear role expectations.Nombyism.Inaccurate markers of abuse and neglect.Unexplained health problems assumed to be evidence of abuse.Reversal of the burden of proof.Emphasis on proof rather than prevention.Children not actually receiving social work.Financial short-termism.Absence of a true health and social audit.Mis-use of powers due to conflicts of interest.
Summary: Adverse Health and Social ImpactsHealth and social consequences from mis-diagnosis; children not receiving appropriate assessment, treatment and support.Parents and carers being intimidated out of accessing necessary services.Diversion of resources from genuine life-saving courses of action.Families suffering health and social consequences from the trauma of inappropriate assessment, false allegations and false inferences.Children suffering in the “Care” system.
Systemic Reform: Out of the Silence
There is substantial support for the view that reform of the Child Protection system is necessary. The indicators of the need for reform are expressed in parliamentary debate, judicial decisions, research findings, media reports, incorporation as themes in artistic and dramatic works, discussion in professional newsletters and email lists, discussion in cyberspace and in complaints to members of parliament, professional bodies, Health Authorities, Local Authorities and Local Government Ombudsmen. The indicators may be measured numerically and in terms of population diversity.
In the Service Users’ Joint Statement, some 47 research studies were coordinated together with comment and guidance from 50 or so constituencies of children and families, service providers, academics, consultants and other colleagues as part of a research project to determine what reforms in Child Protect were necessary. The reform agenda is underpinned by that research and by an extensive body of critical literature.
Some eighty or so Child Protection service user websites are now in existence addressing the problem of miscarriages of justice in Child Protection.  It should be pointed out that the majority of Child Protection service users are the falsely accused and falsely suspected and their children.
Media reports on miscarriages of justice in Child Protection are probably in the thousands. Approximately seventy families have allegedly complained to the GMC about so called expert witnesses. The number of complaints to other agencies is not currently known, but is believed to be widespread.
Over four hundred Child Protection miscarriages of justice have been identified in the public arena in Britain and America. Yet how many of the 52,00-78,000 British “looked after children” were obtained through miscarriages of justice is not yet known. More than thirty preventable deaths have occurred among children administered by Child Protection. The implications of more than eleven legal precedents are yet be to cascaded down through the system.
Summary: Indicators of the Need for Reform
Miscarriages of Justice. Preventable injury and deaths. Under servicing. Poor outcomes in “Care”Complaints to M.P.’s.Complaints to professional bodies, Health authorities, Local Authorities and the Local government Ombudsman.Legal precedents.Research studies.Media reports: articles in broadsheets and tabloids, letters to the editor, radio & TV news.Documentaries.Internet activity: number of websites, hit rate, participants in chat rooms.Demonstrations.Discussion in professional newsletters and email lists.Artistic and dramatic expression.
Systemic Reform: Listening to Feedback
When perceived needs for reform graduate to the status of expressed needs and are reproduced on a large scale by diverse populations in diverse settings, a political claim may be regarded as having been intensively and extensively made out. Taken together, the indicators of the need for reform are strong and pervasive. The reform agenda has thereby achieved the critical mass necessary to legitimately assert that reform of the Child Protection system is essential.
In speaking to the reform agenda, I wish to stress the importance of consulting health and social care service users and listening to the insights their perspectives generate. The reform agenda has developed from consultation with children and families and those who share their perspectives.
Recommendations for change include the need for the social policing and surveillance functions which characterize Child Protection to be separated from the service provision functions which enhance the lives of children and their families. Under the current British system, contradictory role expectations result in conflicts of interests which undermine the roles that professionals are expected to perform. Families feel intimidated out of accessing services by the presence of draconian Child Protection functions. If they are to be able to access the preventative and therapeutic services which enhance the lives of children and families, then Child Protection must be quarantined, only to be called in where there is genuine evidence of abuse and neglect. To hamper service provision to children and families with destructive and failing Child Protection practices is to fail to meet the needs of children and families.
Summary: The Reform AgendaPlace the needs of children and families at the heart of policy development.Create opportunities for children and families to exert influence at all levels.Use honest language: poisoning is poisoning, suffocation is suffocation.Create role clarity:  police do police work, social workers do social work. Reconceptualise the role of Social Worker to bring it into line with international standards and requirements.Remove conflicts of interest.Locate Social Workers in an independent location to allow them to use child centred and family centred practice and to exercise professional judgment.Favour universally available services over targeted services, as this reduces stigmatisation and traumatic assessment. Divert resources wasted on assessment into service provision.The principle of self-referral to replace coercion.Respect privacy and confidentiality so that people are able to access therapeutic and preventative services.Create transparency and respond appropriately to feedback.Implement the real intention of the 1989 Children’s Act. Reform legislation and policies which are in conflict with the Act.Shared Care: adopt the principle that a child cannot be loved too much. (Abandon closed adoption).Cascade down the implications of International Law on Human Rights.
Placing Children and Families at the Heart of Public Policy
I would like to return to where we started. To Victoria Climbie and to the children we have failed, to those we have failed utterly and completely. I would like to repeat, the question Charles Pragnell asked, “What would Victoria have wanted to happen?” I think it is unlikely that she would have repeated the refrain which has been offered after every Child Protection Inquiry into a Child death that “more communication among professionals is required.”
Victoria would not have wanted us to talk more, but to listen more. Not to speak about her, but to speak to her. She may have wanted to return to the care of her parents. She may have wanted to attend Boarding School. She would have had a special and intimate knowledge of her own needs. We shall never know exactly what that knowledge was, because no one asked. We must now clear away the conflicts of interest so that children can be seen and heard, unequivocally.

http://ljmu.academia.edu/LynneWrennall/Papers/301109/Wrennall_L._2004_Miscarriages_of_Justice_in_Child_Protection_a_brief_history_and_proposals_for_change._Paper_presented_to_the_parliamentary_conference_held_by_the_All_Party_Group_on_Abuse_Investigations_Attlee_Suite_Portcullis_House_2_December

May 29, 2010

‘Social Services in Staffordshire and their policy of “forced adoptions” are to blame for this,’ she writes.

Heartbreaking last letter from murder-charge mother: ‘They’re trying to take my children. I’m giving them a wonderful holiday before events you will start to read about…’
By PAUL HARRIS
Last updated at 7:52 AM on 29th May 2010
Add to My Stories
Gently holding her baby son, Lianne Smith is a picture of proud parenthood.
Hours later, the boy and his sister were dead and their mother had tried to kill herself.
The haunting photograph, apparently taken by Mrs Smith’s five-year-old daughter Rebecca, was included in a package which was posted from Spain to England.
It arrived only yesterday and is revealed exclusively in the Daily Mail. The fugitive mother compiled an album of their ‘wonderful holiday’ together on the Costa Brava, then sent it off with a farewell letter before allegedly smothering Rebecca and 11-month-old Daniel with a plastic bag almost two weeks ago.
Hours left to live: Baby Daniel Smith in his mother Lianne’s arms
The package leaves little doubt that the tormented teacher mapped out every last detail of her actions, and was fully in control until the end.
Crucially, a line in her letter pinpoints the exact moment  –  and the reason  –  she decided to put her plan into action.
She reveals that ‘an attempt was made to take my children’  –  so she intended to give them ‘a short and wonderful holiday before events you will start to hear about in the press’.
Smiling and apparently untroubled: Lianne Smith poses for the camera
Mrs Smith, 43, who is accused of her children’s murder, sent the package to a publicist she had contacted through the internet after the arrest of her partner Martin Anthony Smith.
He became one of Britain’s most wanted men when he fled with her to Spain more than two years ago to avoid child sex charges.
The former TV ‘psychic’ was taken from the flat they shared in Barcelona on May 8, and extradited to Britain shortly afterwards.
Ice-cream treat: Rebecca prepares to tuck into a sundae
Mrs Smith, a former child protection expert with Cumbria County Council, refused to believe he was guilty  –  and hoped publicity over her plight would allow her to keep custody of her children while she fought the allegations on his behalf.
In an anguished telephone interview with the publicist, she sobbed: ‘I really don’t know how I’ll cope.’
On May 14, she was panicked into fleeing Barcelona after what she described as ‘an attempt to take my children’. It is thought that Spanish social workers had tried to contact her.
Enlarge
She headed for Lloret de Mar, the resort where she and Smith spent three weeks after they arrived in Spain. The neatly written letter gives the clearest indication yet that she intended to end her life alongside her children.
According to experts, it was the work of someone who strives to maintain control over the situation in which she finds herself  –  ‘at whatever cost’.
The last trip to the beach: Five-year-old Rebecca Smith and her 11-month-old brother Daniel crawl happily in the sand together near the family’s Costa hotel
She put her Barcelona home address at the top and dated it Sunday May 16.
By that time, she was already staying in the beachfront hotel where the children’s bodies would be discovered less than 48 hours later. Crucially, she already speaks about them in the past tense.
Without explaining why, she says she packed essentials for only three days.
The letter from Mrs Smith, who lived in Lichfield, Staffordshire, before fleeing to Spain, coldly shifts responsibility for what happened.
Enlarge
Epitaph to a lost son and daughter: Extracts from the letter sent back to England by Lianne Smith
‘Social Services in Staffordshire and their policy of “forced adoptions” are to blame for this,’ she writes. Foretelling her own death, she adds: ‘If we were only dealing with the police and court system I would still be here for Martin.’
The final line appears to have been added as an afterthought. It makes certain that the exact location of room 101, where the bodies would be discovered, was identified.
‘Our hotel is the MIRAMAR,’ she writes. ‘Our room is the 1st floor far right.’ As it turned out, no one needed a guide like this to find them.
Mrs Smith survived to alert the authorities herself despite apparently using the same plastic bag which smothered the children on herself. This was followed by a further suicide attempt when she slashed her wrists.
Tender moments: Daniel plays with a banana next to the bed where he died and Rebecca enjoys a ride on the swings
What looks certain now is that the children’s deaths were not the result of any single, overwhelming moment of torment  –  but the culmination of a desperate, carefully calculated escape Mrs Smith had been planning for days.
Chillingly, the evidence suggests she took the pictures, wrote the letter, got the film developed  –  then put the rest of her plan into action.
The letter was written in blue roller-ball on two sides of A4 paper. It was sent in the same package as the set of colour prints, negatives, two blank Lloret de Mar postcards and rough copies of passport identity pages. It bore three Spanish stamps and was marked ‘Urgent’.
In one of the photographs, an envelope just like the one that arrived can be seen on Daniel’s bed, with a pen and paper nearby.
Enlarge
In another, also apparently taken by Rebecca, Mrs Smith is seen smiling and apparently untroubled.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282341/Spain-murder-charge-mother-Lianne-Smiths-letter-toddler-deaths.html

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 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 29, 2010

Cannock social services advertise children like lost puppies on BAAF website

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

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

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

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

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

STOP FORCED ADOPTION !!!!!!

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

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

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

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 8, 2010

Child snatching by the state conference update

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

Robert Green , Anne and Hollie Grieg also confirmed.

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

Weather Forecast is great and a buffet is available.

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

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

I look forward to meeting you all Saturday.

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

xxx

If this goes well its a start of many more xxxx

April 6, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council chiefs earn more cash than PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The information was gathered under the Freedom of Information Act.

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

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

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

April 4, 2010

social workers are targeting babies for adoption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beverley Lawrence Beech, Chair AIMS

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

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

April 2, 2010

Staffordshire Social Services ignored yet another child

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

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

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

Another Staffordshire Mother Comes Forward

I am 34 yrs old and a single parent to 2 beautifull girls who have always been my greatest pleasure in life. Ive had a couple of relationships since the the birth of my first child 17 yrs ago. I gave birth to my second child 2003 and got married 2004, however this only lasted 6 months, he was a violent controlling bully. I was divorced 6 months later. Needless to say he never bothered with his daughter again, he never emotinally supported my daughter neither did he  financially supported her. We never heard from him again.

The LA involement in my familys life started when my eldest daughter was playing up a bit, there were no major concerens she was just behaving as  normal 15 yr olds do.
The LA never offered her any help or support, not that i would of wanted this any way, but surly this is an obligation the LA are obliged to do.
She is now doing great she is studying her A levels and has a part time job at the  weekends. The only thing lacking in her life is her little sister, these 2 girls had a fabulous bond which has now been destroyed by the  LA.

In aprill 2009 The LA held a secret court were they decided to place my yougest child on an ico their fraudlent claims are that of neglect they claim school attendence although she had a good attentendance at school, she had also just had her leval 5 assesment done were she was found to be OUTSTANDING as a five year, since her forciable removal she  now has a special learner every day at school her teacher says she is unable to concentrate. She was out of nappies at 2 yrs old however lately has had a couple of accidents were she has wet her self. These are so blantley the effects of being denied her loving mother. My baby is so stressed and wants to come home it is shocking.

The LA asked her if she wanted to meet her dad when they removed her she did not, however their brain washing has taken its toll and ten months later she has met him.

There are four police reports in the court bundle were this man a severly beaten me, there are pictures were he has put cigerttes out on my face urinated on me and so on .

The genius in the ss now think it is a great idea to place my daughter in his home to live permenently the police reports do not get a mention in court, rehashing old evidence they say, if we have not been able to adress them how can they be old evidence.
His police file has not been pulled, He also has another x wife and another 2 children which are not mentioned, WHY.

My final hearing april and their final evidence says they want my daughter to live with this man, on a supervision order, they will then cut my contact to once a fortnight still stricly supervised of course. That is the plan for the first year, then what contact i will be allowed i dont know.

THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN THE FAMILY COURTS

March 26, 2010

The Family court anthem many thanks to ZOOMY

March 5, 2010

Peter Traves Corporate Director ( does he actually exist ? )

Can someone please acknowledge the existance of Peter Traves ?

I am beginning to think he does not exist.

After three years of complaints , requests for files and having plenty of evidence that any decent corporate director would be interested in.

He has yet to do anything.

Even when other people are starting to wake up to this lying and secretive organisation he fails to do anything.

This leads me to question does he actually exist ?

If he does is he human ?

One would think that anyone with a shred of humanity would seek to put things straight for the sake of the children and parents in Staffordshire.

Not Mr Traves he seems to be suffering from ” bury my head in the sand or up my arse” personality disorder with traits of I will not accept any responsibilty syndrome.


February 24, 2010

Denying a child of breast milk is against its Human Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing – they both spread crap from place to place.

whats the difference between a social worker and a rotweiler?

its easier to get your kids back off a rotweiler

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

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

Disclaimer and information for professionals that are:

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

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

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

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

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

Social Workers are the problem not the solution

Social Workers “Wannabe Professionals”

Fighting Child-Stealing by the State

Conference : Lawful Rebellion – Fighting Child Stealing by the State

Duration : All Day

Date : 10th april 2010

Location: Stafford Rangers Football Club, Stafford , West Midlands

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Details and Contact:

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

February 21, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maternal Deprivation and Attatchment Theory

Bowlby Child Development

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

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

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

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

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

The Main Points of Bowlby’s Attachment Theory:


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

• delinquency,

• reduced intelligence,

• increased aggression,

• depression,

• affectionless psychopathy

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


44 Thieves Study (Bowlby, 1944)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bowlby PDF Downloads

Maltreatment of Mothers in care proceedings and Article 3

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

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

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

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.