UKCORRUPTFAMILYCOURTS

December 17, 2012

Dear Parents and Extended Families

I would like to do some research on diagnosis given in Family Courts and the experts and methods in which diagnosis were made.

I would like to know

The diagnosis you were given.

1. Did you have a diagnosis prior to court proceedings ?

2. The expert used to give you a diagnosis in Family Court proceedings.

3.The method used in which you received diagnosis , i.e psychometric testing , interviews etc

4. Whether the diagnosis meant you then lost custody of your children.

5. Whether you were offered any treatment or therapy for the said diagnosis.

6. Whether as a result of the diagnosis you are now in receipt of any sickness benefits or DLA that you were not entitled to prior to family courts.

&. The local authority involved .

The easiest way to submit this is via the comments section below .

Please comment as anonymous or under a false name this is to protect you .

Thank You

December 8, 2012

CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE !

December 4, 2012

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

They are now being sued never ever give up x

EXPECT ME !

May 25, 2012

Anyone with feedback on Staffordshire Social Services Family workers

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

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

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

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

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

5. all she does in contact is plays SODOKU

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

April 25, 2012

Have you seen this child . She has just been snatched from a delivery suite by staffordshire county council

Thi is the picture of  JENNY Sahota social worker waiting in delivery suite to snatch child.      AMBER ALERT mising child snatched from delivery suite at Burton Hospital by Marian Richards et al team denying a child of its breastmilk is against the childs HUMAN RIGHTS justice munby. Image

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 7, 2011

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

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

Mum’s care baby fight goes to Euro court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://networkedblogs.com/hyrv7

May 4, 2011

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

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

use of facebook to investigate parents

Bookmark and Share Skip to the end
 rated by 0 users

 This post has 25 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 25 Contributor

 romeo2001Posted: 3 Oct 2010 1:26 PM

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

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

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

Top 25 Contributor
Female

 redana replied on4 Oct 2010 9:13 PM

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

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

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

Top 200 Contributor

 gear replied on4 Oct 2010 10:46 PM

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

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

Top 10 Contributor

‘Pre-crime’ Comes to Children’s Services

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

Top 25 Contributor

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

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

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

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

Top 10 Contributor

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

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

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

4722.procedure CPP visits and letter.doc

 Andy_Pandy:

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

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

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

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

Top 50 Contributor

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

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

Top 75 Contributor

 hound replied on5 Oct 2010 12:54 AM

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

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 1:45 AM

New Facebook Privacy Complaint Filed with Trade Commission

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

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

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

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

http://www.reputationdefender.com

http://deletefacebook.com

http://www.reclaimprivacy.org

Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents


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

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

Top 150 Contributor

 copperbird replied on5 Oct 2010 4:41 AM

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

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

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

Top 25 Contributor
Female

 redana replied on5 Oct 2010 10:44 AM

 Andy_Pandy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top 25 Contributor

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

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

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

Top 25 Contributor
Female

 redana replied on5 Oct 2010 12:00 PM

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

Top 25 Contributor
 hound:

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

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

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

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 12:36 PM

Hello, this is one of my clients

Hello I am here to see my Social Worker

Some of my cases are quite complex

etc

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

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

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

Top 10 Contributor
 romeo2001:

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

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

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

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

Top 25 Contributor
 PatHew:

Hello, this is one of my clients

Hello I am here to see my Social Worker

Some of my cases are quite complex

etc

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

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

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

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

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 4:19 PM

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

Facebook Page? Or Exhibit A in Court?

Top 50 Contributor

 Bulldog Allan replied on5 Oct 2010 5:17 PM

 PatHew:

Hello, this is one of my clients

Hello I am here to see my Social Worker

Some of my cases are quite complex

etc

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

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

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

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

Top 200 Contributor

 gear replied on5 Oct 2010 7:28 PM

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

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

Top 150 Contributor

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

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 8:12 PM

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

 copperbird:

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

Top 10 Contributor
Female

 cb replied on6 Oct 2010 7:32 AM

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

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

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

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

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on7 Oct 2010 3:55 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on7 Oct 2010 4:10 PM

 cb:

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

PS:

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

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

Top 100 Contributor

 Tink63 replied on7 Oct 2010 5:44 PM

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

Page 1 of 1 (26 items) | RSS

May 4, 2011

May 1, 2011

IS THE FORCED ADOPTION OF A CHILD ABUSIVE IN ITSELF ?

Adopted Child Syndrome (ACS)

IT’S HISTORY & RELEVANCE TODAY

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

Years laters Kirschner still maintained:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kirschner never responded.

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

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


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

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


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

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

Chronological List of Psychopathology Studies

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

Vicky Haigh flees the babysnatchers

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

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

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

Babies in womb feel mothers’ anxiety at only four months

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

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

Vicky Haigh flees the babysnatchers

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

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

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

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 30 Apr 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For legal reasons, comments are disabled on this story.

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

April 27, 2011

MP John Hemming outs Doncaster council over injunction

MP John Hemming outs Doncaster council over injunction

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

Liberal Democrat MP John HemmingLiberal Democrat MP John Hemming

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

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

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

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

Ms Haigh is also prevented from talking about the details.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doncaster council was unavailable for comment last night.

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

April 23, 2011

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

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

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

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

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 23 Apr 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pregnant woman threatened with prison for breach of gagging order

Pregnant woman threatened with prison for breach of gagging order

By Andy McSmith

Saturday, 23 April 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 19, 2011

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

Quaero Injunctions and the Inquiry

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

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

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

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

New type of injunction – the Quaeroinjunction

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

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

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

ENDS

Notes for Editors
Magna Carta Clause 29 is here

Article 6 ECHR is here

April 17, 2011

A mother is threatened with imprisonment for talking to her MP

A mother is threatened with imprisonment for talking to her MP

The high-handed power of social workers and the courts, working in tandem, threatens even the privileges of Parliament, writes Christopher Booker.

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

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

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 16 Apr 201148 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real-time updating is enabled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brilliant genius well no, an abuse of his position.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday 11:01 PM
Recommended by
9 people
cartimandua

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

But you can and in a newspaper!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 12, 2011

Man gagged by secret family courts now free to speak

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 7:21 pm
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Freed man in court secrecy battle

A businessman cleared of rape was told by social workers that he could not live with his young daughter and was then banned from asking his MP for help.

Andy France with his wife Qi and their daughter at his home in Birmingham: Freed man in court secrecy battle

Andy France with his wife Qi and their daughter at his home in Birmingham Photo: CLARA MOLDEN
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent 7:00AM BST 10 Apr 2011

When Andrew France was finally cleared of a rape he did not commit after a four-year ordeal he wanted only to return to the family he loved – and be a father to the daughter who was born while he was in jail.

But social workers told the innocent businessman that if he moved into the family home they would respond by taking his four-year old into care.

And astonishingly, Mr France was even forced into agreeing that he would not speak to his MP about his legal fight, after he was handed what is known as a “hyperinjunction“.

Now, finally able to speak out, he is backing his MP John Hemming’s campaign to crack down on secrecy in the courts and prevent judges from making “anti-democratic” injunctions – a campaign which comes amid rising concern over restrictions on freedom of speech being imposed by courts.

Mr France said: “It’s not right that a court can ban someone from speaking to their Member of Parliament about their problems.

“You’ve just gone through an awful experience like that, and nobody wants to take your case on because you’ve been a convicted sex offender.

“I turned to my MP and he wanted to find out what had happened.

“But then social services left me with no illusions that if I spoke publicly about the case they would knock on the door and take our daughter away.

“I told them that they were gagging me. They replied that if I continued to talk to Mr Hemming, or the media, about the case then they would put in for immediate care proceedings and take the child off us.”

Mr France, from Sheldon, Birmingham, who runs a construction company, added: “It was only when I was a free man that they decided to say they would take the child off us. We did not know what to do for the best.

“The first time I heard about the order not to speak to Mr Hemming was in a letter from my wife’s solicitor in March 2010.

“They were going for what’s known as a fact-finding hearing, where they re-run your criminal trial in a lower court and make a finding on the balance of probabilities.

“I couldn’t believe it. The secrecy in this country is unbelievable.”

Mr France, 48, was released from prison in 2008 while he awaited the appeal hearing.

While the proceedings continued, social workers at Birmingham City Council allowed him access to his baby daughter, who cannot be named for legal reasons, who was being cared for by his wife, Qi.

The businessman had been sentenced to seven years after being falsely accused of raping and sexually abusing a teenage boy.

In December 2009, Lord Justice Moses in the Court of Appeal described Mr France’s conviction as “unsafe” because there was “no rational explanation” why a critical piece of medical evidence was not presented to the jury by the defence team.

After his name had been cleared but when social services refused to allow him to move in with his family, Mr France spoke to a local newspaper about his dilemma.

The local authority then secured the gagging order from Judge Martin Cardinal at Birmingham County Court.

Its terms said that he had “agreed” to not speak to his MP – something Mr France says he only did because of the threat of losing his child, who still cannot be named for legal reasons.

The council eventually dropped its legal proceedings last summer and Mr France was able to finally return to his family.

Mr Hemming, who apart from being Mr France’s constituency MP also specialises in addressing miscarriages of justice in the family courts, said: “It is very clear that orders such as this undermine the inalienable right of citizens to talk to people in government.

“Members of Parliament are normally the last resort for people who have problems with the system failing. Courts which interfere with this right are behaving in an unconstitutional manner.

“Parliament used to stand up for people’s rights and it should stand up again.”

A string of celebrities, many of them prominent sporting stars, have obtained superinjunctions, which prevent the publication of details about their private lives including extra-marital affairs and the use of prostitutes.

Mr Hemming and other advocates of freedom of speech say the use of the orders represents a threat to democracy.

Mr Hemming used Parliamentary privilege to reveal that Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, had obtained a court order preventing the publication of information about him and even identifying that he was a banker.

Mark Newby, Mr France’s solicitor in the appeal case, said: “There is an increasing level of secrecy in the courts. This often means there are too many restrictions and too much is balanced against the defendant.”

A Birmingham City Council spokeswoman insisted that Mr France had agreed not to approach the MP and technically this was not a requirement of the injunction. However, if he had approached the MP he would have been in contempt of court.

“In March 2010, Andrew France agreed in court not to disclose any further details of the ongoing case to anyone. This was not a court order and it was not as a result of a request made by Birmingham City Council,” the spokeswoman said.

“At the conclusion of the proceedings, the judge made it very clear that Mr France was free to discuss the case as he wished, on the basis that the identity of any children were not divulged.

“The welfare of children involved in care proceedings is always the first priority of the city council but the authority does not comment on the specifics of any such case.”

A Judicial Communications Office spokeswoman said: “There is nothing novel about this form of injunction.

“In cases where injunctive relief is granted so as to prohibit the subject of the injunction from disseminating the information to anyone, the subject of the injunction is only able to discuss the order and the proceedings with their lawyer.

“Ordinarily then any injunction granted would prohibit its subject from discussing the case with anyone, including the media, their family and MPs.”

Judge Cardinal, who issued the order, is 58, was called to the Bar in 1977 and served as a district judge from 1994. He took his current role as a circuit judge in 2004.

He is also a lay reader and chancellor of the Diocese of Birmingham.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8439969/Freed-man-in-court-secrecy-battle.html

 

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

April 8, 2011

Staffordshire social worker with a smoking fetish ?

Worker sacked for search smoking children pics avoids being struck-off

Worker sacked for search smoking children pics avoids being struck-off

By Phil Corrigan Philip.Corrigan@Thesentinel.Co.Uk

A SOCIAL worker who was sacked for using his work computer to search for pictures of children smoking has avoided being struck off.

Alan Paling, who indulged his habit while working for Staffordshire County Council, was yesterday cleared of misconduct.

The General Social Care Council‘s conduct committee heard that Mr Paling had carried out nearly 200 internetsearches using terms such as “smoking fetish”, “smoking teens”, and “smoking child” between April 2008 and April 2009.

He also accessed an internet video clip of two females in school uniform, although the subjects’ ages could not be determined.

But the committee ruled that while Mr Paling’s behaviour could be considered “questionable”, it did not warrant his removal from the social care register.

The internet searches, which were in breach of the county council’s internet use policy, were discovered by a county council ICT officer in May 2009. Mr Paling, of Foxglove Lane, Clayton, was suspended from his role as an emergency duty team social worker manager, and an internal investigation took place.

GSCC presenting officer Nimi Bruce said that while Mr Paling’s activity was not illegal, it was clearly inappropriate for someone whose job involved working with children.

She said: “The police were contacted in the early stages of the investigation, but it was ascertained that the activity did not cross the threshold for police action.

“On May 18, a meeting took place in relation to the case. It was felt that the nature of the search terms used caused very significant concern.”

Mr Paling, who had worked as a social worker for 33 years without any previous concerns being raised, had his county council employment terminated in June 2009.

During the investigation it emerged Mr Paling had long-standing issues with smoking, and that he felt guilt over his own smoking.

The conduct committee found that misconduct had not been proved.

Panel chairman Ian Daines said: “The committee is conscious that, in this diverse and pluralistic society, many forms of behaviour may cause concern to some people.

“This committee is satisfied that neither the protection of the public nor the public interest calls into question the registrant’s suitability to remain on the register.”

A county council spokesman said there was no suggestion Mr Paling had any professional contact with the young people whose images he viewed.

He added: “After a thorough investigation it was concluded that Mr Paling’s actions had not directly endangered any young people during the course of his work.

“However, he had shown by his own admission, ‘appalling judgement’ which made him unsuitable to continue working with young children. He was therefore dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct.”

Mr Paling declined to comment.

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Worker-s-web-search-smoking-children/article-3426345-detail/article.html

 

May 30, 2010

Adoption move defended by council chiefs

Adoption move defended by council chiefs
by JAMES BENSTEADLast updated: 10/02/2007 00:00
SOCIAL services chiefs have defended their decision to place a toddler for adoption with a couple who were later convicted of neglecting and sexually assaulting her.
The child, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had been with the couple for less than a year at their home in Midway when she was taken semi-conscious to Burton’s Queen’s Hospital.
A trial at Derby Crown Court, which ended last week, was told by the woman that she heard a bang in the bathroom and found the then two-year-old girl lying motionless on the floor.
Instead of calling an ambulance, the 40-year-old rang her husband to return from work and it was he who made the 999 call shortly after his return.
Doctors examining the child at Burton’s Queen’s Hospital found genital injuries consistent with a serious sexual assault, described by one expert as the worst she had seen in more than 20 years of dealing with child abuse cases.
Both parents, who can also not be identified and had never been in trouble before, gave conflicting stories when interviewed by police, but each denied two counts of sexual assault on a child and three counts of cruelty against a child.
The trial jury convicted the 39-year-old man of both charges of sexual assault, and his now ex-wife, 40, of two charges of cruelty, relating to her failure to seek immediate treatment for the injuries and causing the baby a serious head injury, probably by shaking it. They are due to be sentenced on March 12.
Although the couple live in South Derbyshire, the girl was placed with them by the adoption agency at Staffordshire County Council after they had failed to conceive a child and an expensive round of IVF treatment had failed.
In September, 2004, following a series of tests and ‘rigorous’ checks, the adoption team placed a child in the couple’s care ahead of an official adoption being finalised in May 2005.
The court heard that, just two days after the horrendous events of August 6, 2005, the couple were also due to take in another child — their victim’s biological sister.
A county council spokesman said: “When people apply to be considered as adoptive parents, the council is responsible for undertaking preparation and assessment in accordance with regulations and statutory guidance.
“The assessment is considered by an adoption panel which makes a recommendation to the adoption agency.
“A review concluded that this was a well-conducted adoption assessment where events followed a proper sequence, the work complied with Department for Education and Skills (DfES) standards and good practice in place at the time.
“Naturally, we are saddened to hear of cases such as this and we would wish to point out that the council does everything in its power to safeguard children as much as possible.”

.”http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Adoption-move-defended-by-council-chiefs.htm

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 24, 2010

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

Boss of Staffordshire social services defends team in Spanish murder ordeal

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

May 15, 2010

CHILD SNATCHING CONFERENCE IN STAFFORD MAKES THE TELEGRAPH

Britain’s child snatchers are a scandal

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

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

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

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

May 11, 2010

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

PRESS RELEASE 8 SEPTEMBER 2009
“GOVERNMENT FUNDED CHILD ABUSE”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 8, 2010

blatant lies were told to the Panel by social workers

Panel Minutes

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

Cafcass & fact finding

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

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

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

May 2, 2010

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

Sheena Williams

2 May 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Article – Family Courts ‘jolly good fun’ ?‏

Dear Judge Isobel Plumstead

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may find his website of interest

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

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

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

regards

Cllr Sheena Williams ( Independent – Maidstone Borough Councillor)

Link to thisSend follow up

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

A COUNCILLOR with a child porn conviction has defended his decision to join a committee, which deals with legislation including rules protecting children.

A COUNCILLOR with a child porn conviction has defended his decision to join a committee, which deals with legislation including rules protecting children.

Councillor Lee Wanger‘s appearance on Stoke-on-Trent City Council‘s licensing and consumer protection committee comes just a month after he said he would not take up the role.

The Tunstall ward member, pictured, had initially told The Sentinel he would step down after concerns were raised by council members about his suitability.

But he said he is taking on the role to serve residents who re-elected him in 2006.

Click here for more

He is adamant that his conviction has no bearing on his ability to serve on the two licensing panels.

He said: “I wasn’t going to join the panels at first, but after seeking legal clarification I was told that there was no reason I could not take up the roles.

“As leader of the Stoke-on-Trent Independent Group, I am entitled to these seats.

“I know some members are unhappy about my decision, but I think this is part of a political campaign against me in the run-up to the local elections.

“I have always voluntarily stayed away from any roles that would involve contact with children and will continue to do so.

“Should a case come to either committee involving a person with previous convictions for sexual offences then I would not sit in on that part of the hearing.”

Mr Wanger was convicted in January 2005 of paying $25 to subscribe to a child porn website in 1999, although he has always maintained his innocence.

He was fined £250 and ordered to sign the sex offenders’ register for five years. The order expired last month.

He said: “My conviction is spent now and I have served my time.

“People in this city do have faith in me as a councillor, and that’s why I was re-elected after my conviction.”

Mr Wanger attended his first committee meeting yesterday.

The committee deals with issues such as licensees selling alcohol to under-18s and assessing whether those applying to become taxi drivers pose a risk to the public.

At yesterday’s meeting, vice-chairman Councillor Joy Garner asked officers whether panel members should be subjected to stringent child protection checks.

In a discussion on competence tests for taxi drivers, she said: “We are taking steps to improve the quality of cars and drivers, but there is legislation coming through dealing with safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.

“How do the Independent Safeguarding Authority checks affect drivers, operators and us as council members?”

Licensing officer Rachel Collier said it would be up to the council’s standards committee whether any council members would need to be registered with the safeguarding initiative.

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

Bungling Incompetent Staffordshire Social Worker Idiots at it again

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

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.


March 1, 2010

Dedicated to my beautiful children ( im still fighting for you and i love you so so much )

Staffordshire Local Authority in the news

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/02/stoke-mp-david-kidney-blasted-staffs.html

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2011-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=50

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/02/revealed-how-staffordshire-social-care.html

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/02/whats-really-happening-in-staffordshire.html

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/03/fury-as-law-charity-admits-stafford.html

MORE TO FOLLOW

February 24, 2010

Dedicated to the Stolen Children

Fight Forced Adoption

ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION!!

My name is IAN JOSEPHS.UK Social services have never hurt me, my family, or my friends, but their wicked abuse of power has simply shocked me into action!”Forced adoption” too often legally deprives healthy,happy,children from all contact with loving parents,brothers,sisters,,grandparents,and other relatives for the rest of their lives! Adoption is a wonderful thing for abandoned and neglected children if it is TRULY VOLUNTARY but is a wicked deed that should be severely punished if forced through the courts against the will and frantic opposition of loving parents. Many will say that I overstate and exaggerate my case  thereby undermining it. I promise you that on the contrary I am understating it as things are now far worse than the public could possibly imagine or accept as credible if I revealed all!Please feel free to use or quote anything you like from my site that you may find useful.

http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduction.asp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/chat/r/t-9805973/index.html

http://www.fassit.co.uk/charles_pragnell_adoption.htm

http://www.infoniac.com/news/forced-adoption-doesnt-give-parents-any-chance.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forced-Adoption-Ian-Josephs/dp/1847997988

http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/2009/11/forced-adoption-and-failures.html

Unborn children on at-risk register
Friday, December 26, 2008, 08:30
2 readers have commented on this story.
Click here to read their views.
LATEST figures show more than 60 babies are being put on “at risk” registers while still in the womb each year in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire.
The authorities had some of the highest numbers of unborn babies at risk of harm or abuse in a table of 36 authorities’ figures from 2002 to 2007. Staffordshire ranked fourth on the list, while Stoke-on-Trent was at number seven.
From 2002/03 to 2007/08, officials in Stoke-on-Trent have put 168 unborn babies on the Child Protection Register.
In the last year, 31 foetuses were added to the register, with three babies being taken into care on the same day they were born.
The number of unborn babies being added to the list has risen from 23 in 2002/03.
Staffordshire County Council registered 34 foetuses as in need of protection in 2006/07 – up on 31 in 2002/03.
During that period the authority labelled 199 unborn babies as at risk.
The county council’s figures for the last year are not yet available.
Under national guidelines, officials are taking action when faced with violent, drug addicted parents and those in unsuitable accommodation.
Stoke-on-Trent councillor Roger Ibbs, portfolio holder for children and young people’s services, said: “We have robust and vigilant child protection procedures in place.
“National indicators for safeguarding show that we are in line or better than our statistical neighbours or the national average.
“We work closely with our partners on safeguarding and have clear and defined lines of communication to ensure all necessary action is taken as swiftly and as appropriately as possible where a child is, or is seen to be, at risk.”
The Sentinel reported earlier this month how, in an annual performance assessment (APA) looking at the work of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, its private partner Serco and other key agencies, Ofsted found big improvements in child protection work. It said the private team brought in to transform children’s services in the Potteries is starting to make “rapid progress”, despite overestimating some achievements.
But Ofsted added that provision was still only “adequate” overall because a few issues, such as the high rate of teenage pregnancies and inconsistent education standards, remain a concern.
It covers the period from April 2007 to March 2008 – the first year since Serco took over the strategic management of education and children’s social care in the city.
Councils must follow guidance in the Government document Working Together to Safeguard Children – part of the Every Child Matters agenda – and involve agencies such as social services, the police, health trust and NSPCC.
A spokesman for Staffordshire County Council said: “Decisions to make unborn children subject to a child protection plan are made in line with the statutory guidance.
“This same guidance is clear that the same procedures and timescales should be followed for unborn children.”
This month, following a review of safeguarding children policy, Ed Balls, secretary of state for children, schools and families, said: “Every Child Matters has led to some major improvements and the Children’s Plan continues this drive, underpinned by a resolve to make this country the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up.
“Where the most vulnerable groups are still at risk, we will continue to strengthen arrangements to protect them. Government will not rest until we have the very best possible arrangements to safeguard our most vulnerable children.”

A HEARTBROKEN Midland mum has claimed social workers have snatched her two year-old away from her because they say she is not clever enough to care for him.

The 28 year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is pleading with social services at Staffordshire County Council for her young son to be allowed to live back home with her and her parents in Tamworth.

The single mother, who is on anti-depressants for post natal depression, claims her only son, who is being currently cared for by foster parents, was taken away from her because social services ruled she was not bonding well enough with him.

The unemployed mother also claims her learning difficulties played a part in the youngster being taken out of her care.

The court case will be heard tomorrow.

She said: “I have learning difficulties, but I don’t think my son should have been taken away from me.

“I am really upset and angry they said we weren’t bonding well enough because we are really close.

“Now I see him twice a week and he keeps asking why he can’t come home.”

She added: “I have tried to explain he’s on holiday with his foster parents, who are really lovely, but he’s only two and he cries because he doesn’t understand. I just want him back home with me.

Upsetting

“My dad is not well with Alzheimer’s, and he’s very close to his grandson, so it’s really stressing him out and upsetting him that he’s not with us too.”

Staffordshire County Council said the future care of her son would be decided in court.

A spokesman for Staffordshire’s Social Care and Health said: “The Adult Social Care and Health team has been working closely with this woman for over two years now. During this time she has been offered several options of support. More recently, we have provided her with advocacy arrangements and a solicitor to represent her interests.

“Alternative arrangements have been made with the local authority to look after her son whilst a court date concerning his future welfare is fixed.”

A spokesman for Staffordshire’s Children and Lifelong Learning Directorate, which deals with all social care matters regarding children, said: “Children and Families Services have been working with this family for some considerable time.

“Specialist assessments have been undertaken and these will inform the future care planning, which will be determined by court processes. A court date has been set for September.”

The devastated mother added: “I’m upset this is going to court. I just hope the court decides he can come to live back home with me.”

http://www.sundaymercury.net/lifestyle-news/family-news/2009/09/06/heartbroken-mum-told-you-are-not-clever-enough-to-look-after-2-year-old-66331-24616019/

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 for adoption 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.”

http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/staffordshirenewsletter-news/displayarticle.asp?id=236686

Extract taken from Staffordshire County Council Child Care Team Public Law Outline Training Document

Detailed Assessment – empowering social workers to regain confidence in their own

assessments, as professionals. Demonstrating that a more fuller, clearly evidenced,

analytical assessment would leave little room for parents to successfully obtain leave

for further assessment reducing the delay in this area.

The

worker completed all assessments and was in a position to rule mother

out as a carer prior to the birth of the baby, on historical information.

Mother was notified of our plan and obtained her own legal advice. The

application for a Care Order was in May 2008. Our forward

planning/assessment/evidence gave her no realistic legal argument to

oppose. The case was timetabled to the earliest final hearing date and

was concluded on the 6th November 2008, within 25 weeks. The court

made a Full Care Order and a Placement Order and it is envisaged

Child A will be placed for adoption with his full sibling.

This innovative and progressive training has prepared the client department for the enormous

changes involved in the way that they manage their caseloads. The programme and

expertise has facilitated understanding of the legislative requirements and how to manage the

extensive information that needs to be sought and collated pre-proceedings with a view to all

matters being concluded within 25 weeks instead of the previous 40 week target. The

evidence of the success and achievement of the training package is demonstrable in every

case now undertaken by ourselves.


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

Child Snatching examples

YouTube row over social services baby threat
Ben Leapman, Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 12:01AM BST 19 Aug 2007
A heavily pregnant woman is at the centre of an extraordinary legal battle with social workers after she secretly recorded them threatening to take away her newborn baby.
YouTube audio: The secret recording
Vanessa Brookes, 34, who is due to give birth early next month, smuggled taping equipment into a meeting with social services officials, fearing they would try to take her baby for forced adoption.
She recorded a social worker telling her and her husband Martin, 41, that even though there was “no immediate risk to your child from yourselves”, the council would seek a court order to place the child in foster care.
Mother and baby would be allowed “two or three days” in hospital together, but should not leave the premises until social workers came to remove the infant. In a desperate attempt to keep their baby, the couple have published the recorded conversation on the internet.
Calderdale council, in West Yorkshire, last night accused them of breaching the Data Protection Act by recording its staff without their knowledge or consent. The council said it had begun legal action to have the recording removed from the YouTube website. Mrs Brookes said: “Even puppies and kittens aren’t removed from their mothers at birth. Social workers always record everything, so why shouldn’t we record them?”
John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of campaign group Justice for Families, said: “I find it very odd that a newborn baby would be removed when there is not any allegation by the authorities that the child is at risk. Yet this case is not unique. There are many cases in which newborns are removed because of allegations that their mothers may at some later stage ’emotionally abuse’ the child.”
The case returns the spotlight to claims that social services are being heavy-handed in removing children from their parents, in order to meet Government adoption targets.
The Sunday Telegraph has previously revealed cases of mothers who were not told why their children were taken away, and cases of families whose children were not returned even after the parents had been cleared of wrongdoing. More than 2,000 babies aged under a year were taken for adoption last year, almost triple the level of a decade ago.
Social services took an interest in the Brookes family after Mrs Brookes, who is partially-sighted, was diagnosed with depression and a personality disorder, leading to concerns that her baby might be subjected to “emotional abuse”. Neighbours have complained that the couple’s household was disorderly, but neither has been accused of abusing or harming a child.
In the recorded meeting, the social worker tells the couple: “It’s our intention as a local authority that when your baby is born, we go into court on that same day and ask for an interim court order because we would wish to place your baby with foster carers.”
He tells Mrs Brookes: “I would like you and your baby to stay in hospital until the courts have made a decision.”
The social worker says the two or three days the mother has with her baby in hospital will allow her to begin breast-feeding and that once the infant is taken away, social services will pick up expressed breast milk from her home and deliver it to the foster carers for bottle-feeding.
The social worker admits to the couple that a back-up plan is being drawn up in case the judge refuses the application for a care order. He says: “What we also have to think about is a child protection plan that looks at you, at home, with your baby. There is no immediate risk to your child from yourselves, that’s my understanding from reading documents.”
A spokesman for Calderdale council said officials would seek a meeting with Mr and Mrs Brookes “to understand how this information came into the public domain. We are taking action to have this item removed from YouTube. This recording was made without the knowledge or consent of our member of staff.
“The council does not take lightly any recommendation to the court for a child or a baby to be brought into care. The decision whether or not to institute care proceedings is made by social workers who have to consider the best interests of the child.”

YouTube row over social services baby threat Ben Leapman, Home Affairs CorrespondentPublished: 12:01AM BST 19 Aug 2007A heavily pregnant woman is at the centre of an extraordinary legal battle with social workers after she secretly recorded them threatening to take away her newborn baby.YouTube audio: The secret recordingVanessa Brookes, 34, who is due to give birth early next month, smuggled taping equipment into a meeting with social services officials, fearing they would try to take her baby for forced adoption.
She recorded a social worker telling her and her husband Martin, 41, that even though there was “no immediate risk to your child from yourselves”, the council would seek a court order to place the child in foster care.Mother and baby would be allowed “two or three days” in hospital together, but should not leave the premises until social workers came to remove the infant. In a desperate attempt to keep their baby, the couple have published the recorded conversation on the internet.Calderdale council, in West Yorkshire, last night accused them of breaching the Data Protection Act by recording its staff without their knowledge or consent. The council said it had begun legal action to have the recording removed from the YouTube website. Mrs Brookes said: “Even puppies and kittens aren’t removed from their mothers at birth. Social workers always record everything, so why shouldn’t we record them?”John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of campaign group Justice for Families, said: “I find it very odd that a newborn baby would be removed when there is not any allegation by the authorities that the child is at risk. Yet this case is not unique. There are many cases in which newborns are removed because of allegations that their mothers may at some later stage ’emotionally abuse’ the child.”The case returns the spotlight to claims that social services are being heavy-handed in removing children from their parents, in order to meet Government adoption targets.The Sunday Telegraph has previously revealed cases of mothers who were not told why their children were taken away, and cases of families whose children were not returned even after the parents had been cleared of wrongdoing. More than 2,000 babies aged under a year were taken for adoption last year, almost triple the level of a decade ago.Social services took an interest in the Brookes family after Mrs Brookes, who is partially-sighted, was diagnosed with depression and a personality disorder, leading to concerns that her baby might be subjected to “emotional abuse”. Neighbours have complained that the couple’s household was disorderly, but neither has been accused of abusing or harming a child.In the recorded meeting, the social worker tells the couple: “It’s our intention as a local authority that when your baby is born, we go into court on that same day and ask for an interim court order because we would wish to place your baby with foster carers.”He tells Mrs Brookes: “I would like you and your baby to stay in hospital until the courts have made a decision.”The social worker says the two or three days the mother has with her baby in hospital will allow her to begin breast-feeding and that once the infant is taken away, social services will pick up expressed breast milk from her home and deliver it to the foster carers for bottle-feeding.The social worker admits to the couple that a back-up plan is being drawn up in case the judge refuses the application for a care order. He says: “What we also have to think about is a child protection plan that looks at you, at home, with your baby. There is no immediate risk to your child from yourselves, that’s my understanding from reading documents.”A spokesman for Calderdale council said officials would seek a meeting with Mr and Mrs Brookes “to understand how this information came into the public domain. We are taking action to have this item removed from YouTube. This recording was made without the knowledge or consent of our member of staff.”The council does not take lightly any recommendation to the court for a child or a baby to be brought into care. The decision whether or not to institute care proceedings is made by social workers who have to consider the best interests of the child.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560701/YouTube-row-over-social-services-baby-threat.html

AND SUPRISE SUPRISE THE VIDEO WAS REMOVED FROM YOUTUBE

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.

New Medicine Available For Social Workers

THE INJUSTICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ( great site check it out )

THE INJUSTICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM

undefined

How you deal with Social Workers, Court, Police, Prison, the NSPCC and Probation, is within these pages. Updated, as new laws and even more bureaucracy threaten to overwhelm us

Family advice and information to help with the hypocrisy of the Social Services, NSPCC and Police, who only see that which is beneficial to them. Most families just need help and space to recover, the Social Services, NSPCC and CAFCASS believe the cheapest solution, is to separate them.

The true cost of the overzealous Social Services, the inept and greedy NSPCC and the star chamber family court system needs to be investicated urgently, if the Professionals were sacked or faced prison when they lied, instead of being moved, or retrained when found out, justice would be done. It is left to a Family Court Judge, with the collusion of CAFCASS and Social Services to decide the fate of a family, unfettered by any outside judgement, or publicity, this is far from justice. The police, probation and prison services ensure this injustice is complete. Collateral damage, in order to protect children is seen as a means to an end, tell that to the families left in ruins.

http://www.legalsurvival.co.uk/

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CHILD ABUSE BY THE STATE

19-21 February 2010

By post and by Electronic Mail

copy being forwarded to:

Jane Todd: jane.todd@nottinghamcity.gov.uk
Chief Executive
The Guildhall
Burton Street
Nottingham
NG1 4BT

Alan Simpson, MP: simpsona@parliament.uk
Vernon House
18 Friar Lane
Nottingham
NG1 6DQ

Conduct Group: conduct@gscc.org.uk
General Social Care Council
Myson House
Railway Terrace
Rugby
CV21 3HT

Fitness to Practise
General Medical Council
St James’s Buildings
79 Oxford Street
Manchester M1 6FQ

Julia Hodson, Chief Constable
Nottinghamshire Police
Sherwood Lodge
Arnold
Nottingham
NG5 8PP

Development Producer
Chameleon Television
Church House
14 Town Street
Horsforth
Leeds
LS18 4RJ

Newsdesk: BBC East Midlands Today
BBC East Midlands
London Road
Nottingham
NG2 4UU

ITN: editor@itn.co.uk
200 Gray’s Inn Rd
London
WC1X 8XZ

Channel 4: viewerenquiries@channel4.co.uk
124 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 2TX

Central Tonight:
Central Independent Television Ltd
Central Court
Gas Street
Birmingham
B1 2JT

Metro Newsdesk: news.london@ukmetro.co.uk
Associated Newspapers Limited
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London W8 5TT

Amnesty International UK
The Human Rights Action Centre
17-25 New Inn Yard
London
EC2A 3EA

The UK Column: editor@ukcolumn.org
UK Column
County House
12/13 Sussex Street
Plymouth
PL1 2HR

Daily Star Newsdesk: news@dailystar.co.uk
The Daily Star
The Northern & Shell Building
Number 10 Lower Thames Street
London
EC3R 6EN

Daily Mail Newsdesk: editor.it@dailymail.co.uk
Associated Newspapers Limited
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London W8 5TT

The Times Newsdesk: home.news@thetimes.co.uk newsdesk@sundaytimes.co.ukcamilla.cavendish@thetimes.co.uk
Times House
1 Pennington Street
London
E98 1TT

The Guardian Newsdesk: national@guardian.co.uk commentisfree@guardian.co.uk
Kings Place
90 York Way
London
N1 9GU

The Observer Newsdesk: news@observer.co.uk
Kings Place
90 York Way
London
N1 9GU

Nottingham Evening Post Newsdesk: newsdesk@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk martin.done@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk
Nottingham Post Media Group
Castle Wharf House
Nottingham
NG1 7EU

The Sun Newsdesk: letters@the-sun.co.uk talkback@the-sun.co.uk
Newsdesk
The Sun
1 Virginia St
London
E98 1SL

Newsdesk: investigate@mirror.co.uk
The Mirror
1 Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5AP

Newsdesk: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
The Telegraph
1 Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5AP

Bob Geldof, KBE: geldof@msn.com
Amanda Hon
c/o Jukes Productions Ltd.
P.O. Box 13995
London W9 2FL
UK

To whom it may concern,

It is with deep concern that I write this letter on behalf of my children who are at this very minute being physically and mentally abused whilst in the care of the State. We are VERY worried about their safety and wellbeing. I shall justify this using several points.

They are arranged in no particular chronological order, I will write this as it comes to me.

– Today, I found out that after nearly seven years on medication to control severe ADHD, the eldest child is already showing signs of uncontrolled aggression towards his two younger brothers after being taken off the drug (Ritalin) since last week. He is suddenly showing an interest in boxing and eager to demonstrate his square circle prowess after only a couple weeks, has landed himself a school detention for “punching a wall”! Like the wall would suffer any; I’ve hit walls and only ended up with several broken bones in my fingers. We actually had him sitting down for five minutes during our supervised contact this afternoon in Larkdale Children’s Prison in Nottingham, and his legs were twitching like any “normal” person on quality amphetamines. This is NOT normal behaviour for Nathanael. Neither is him waving a dinner knife around in front of his brother’s face like it was a sword. He has been taught BETTER THAN THAT. He was put on Ritalin in the first place to control his destructive and disruptive behaviour at HIS OWN REQUEST. The boy KNEW at SIX YEARS OLD he had problems with his behaviour and needed serious help controlling it. Today his eyes were fixed and dilated and he showed signs of extreme mental agitation. He was barely in control.

– Also while at the Contact Centre – I mean, prison – we were half-introduced to a new (to me) member of staff calling herself “Cheryl”. This individual came across as tyrannically authoritarian with an air of “I know it all, you know nothing, you have no opinion until I give it to you”. Immediately on our arrival it disconcerted me to hear her ORDERING my children around like they were her own! Examples: Benjamin turned on the TV. The video wasn’t even playing. Cheryl: “Turn that down now!”. The TV is silent while there’s nothing playing on screen. I gave the boys cereal bars, Cheryl: “Sit at the table!”. It was not a request, it came across as an “Or else…!”. That woman concerns me, I do NOT want her anywhere near my children, she is DANGEROUS. Nathanael sat on the rocking horse in the common area: she attempted to forcibly remove him from it, nearly pulling the thing down on top of him! She did the same to Benjamin, AND to Jamie (ostensibly to keep Nathanael off it, saying he was too big for it, and to allow Jamie and Benjamin equal time on it. I asked her why, in a place that was supposed to be so safe, the hobby horse wasn’t bolted to the floor. She came back with this thought-ending cliché: “You were supposed to be watching him”! I asked her what I was supposed to do, centre rules stated that even if the children were tearing strips out of each other we were not allowed to physically intervene, that only the centre staff were allowed to do that – that and the fact that *she* was standing at the side of the horse and I was over five feet away. I told her in no uncertain terms that if they were tearing strips out of each other I *would* be physically seperating them and damn the consequences. She apparently had no thought-ending cliché for that one. She also had no answer to my assertion that the centre rules undermined *my* natural rights as a parent to protect my children, except to state that oh, we still had those rights – to which my reply was “Well from what we’ve witnessed today they should be coming home with *US* in that case”. She went very quiet on that one after the short gasp. I’m not sure if that was mock shock or genuine.

– Last week, Benjamin exhibited a wound on his midriff which looked like a friction burn – grazed through the skin, and it hadn’t even been cleaned. I wish I’d got a photograph now. He claims that he suffered it tripping over a piece of wood in the school playground. Aren’t schools supposed to be safe? Where did the trip hazard come from? Is it in the accident book? Has the offending piece of timber been removed? The answer to all those questions: NO. The staff aren’t even aware that Benjamin suffered any sort of injury at school (funny they seem to have forgotten the head wound he suffered in the playground last year for which he required a HOSPITAL VISIT and STITCHES. Or the incident with the sharp desk corner, also last year, which left him a disfiguring wound above his right eye (which I do have photos of), that we weren’t informed of the cause of for nearly TWO MONTHS after the event during which time he claimed to have – you guessed it, fell over in the playground! He received NO medical treatment from the school for this, he had to be treated at HOME then the Principal at the school, one Caroline E. Norman, tried to claim it was a CIGARETTE BURN inflicted by HIS MOTHER!) Today, he has a shallow, wide scratch below his right eye on the cheek which he claims to know nothing about, and dirt ingrained in his face, hands and torso. He also smelled of stale urine. It looks like our children are NOT EVEN BEING BATHED.

– WE are being coerced (or they’re trying to anyway, and failing miserably!) to withold all truth from our children. This is fantastic, Benjamin and Jamie are going to be being taught sex education at school starting next academic year, and we’re not “allowed” to tell Nathanael the answer to the question HE HIMSELF ASKED; ergo, the effects of the drug he’s *supposed* to be on on people *without* ADHD!? Please explain the logic of this? That is but one of several examples of active censorship being inflicted upon us, and WE ARE NOT STANDING FOR IT.

If there is something which involves our children and/or their future, we will tell them, and nobody will prevent us from doing that. It is OUR obligation as their natural parents to tell them what is THEIR RIGHT to know. We do not lie to our children, we do not expect them to lie to us; while they were home with us they did not lie to us. Recently they are being caught on what I call small white lies. The lies will only get bigger if they are being brainwashed into keeping things from us. That, and Nathanael’s behaviour since being sent cold turkey from a Class A drug puts him at extreme risk to himself (not just for psychological shock value, but also for its physical manifestations) and puts others around him at extreme risk of injury since he has done this before – destroying a garden at school (luckily nobody was hurt but someone could easily have been since he destroyed not only plants but also planting structures such as sheet film construction greenhouses and some tools). This after ONE HALF DAY without Ritalin! What is happening to him in particular and to the other two when he’s having a violent episode? One can only guess at the amount of force it requires to restrain him while he is violently lashing out. To hold him down would quite possibly injure him – think of someone having a hyper seizure. People have been known to spasm so hard they have broken their own backs.

– We have not seen the contact book, which is apparently intended as a means of communication between ourselves and the contract carer, for several months. We have no telephone contact with our children. We have no written contact with our children. Our extended family have no contact with our children. Their own GRANDMOTHER got THREE MINUTES with them last week as they arrived, only on the strength that she happened to be in town and we met her on her way to the bus stop! The first time she has seen or heard from ANY of them in eleven months! The social workers are *supposed* to be, as agreed in LACR meetings, the care plan, and the Judgement itself dated 2 March 2009, initiating and maintaining contact with their several aunts, uncles, cousins and other blood relatives – they have done NOTHING. We bought Nathanael a mobile phone for his thirteenth birthday to be told that it was “inappropriate” for him to own or operate such a device! Under WHOSE authority and under WHAT LAW do they justify this claim? Government guidelines state that THIRTEEN is the appropriate age for owning a pay-as-you-go cellphone and operating social networking pages and email. The same guidelines make NO EXEMPTION for children in care. Would someone please explain WHY our children are being DENIED their God-given rights to freely communicate whomever they please whenever they please using whatever means made available to them? And WHY we are not seeing the contact book or any other documents particularly now that the children are being prevented from bringing anything to contact with them, not even their school bags – notwithstanding the fact that the last report we did see described Jamie having soiled himself? Why does a nine year old boy soil himself? Is he being physically or sexually abused to the point where he is so anxious about being taken back there that he does not want to *go* back? Bear in mind the fact that the two younger children are and have been for several months now, all but having to be physically pulled off me to be taken to the taxi – THEY DO NOT WANT TO GO TO THE CONTRACT CARER, THEY WANT TO COME HOME WITH US. WHY ARE THEY BEING IGNORED?

– From mid-2007 until the day my children were taken, CAMHS had a case file on them, then Social Services decided that they weren’t needed anymore. Why would mental health services not be required for children who had just been forcibly removed from their family, isolated and desperate to come home? One would have to be practised in the art of lying to children to convince them that they were going to a better place for them not to need it; evidence to the contrary is exhibited every time I see them. They are disturbed, lonely and very, very unhappy in their present situation, the only solution to which is to send them back home where they belong where we can watch over them and protect them.

– My previous concerns about the wellbeing of my children, most of which are ongoing and deeply stressful – you have no idea how stressful unless you have actually been there – were raised with the local police, where a sergeant told me that since they were in local authority care “it’s obviously the best place for them”, they would be taking no action! Have they forgotten about Pindown ALREADY!? Another occasion had a different sergeant accusing me of being mentally ill. I am NOT mentally ill, I am ANGRY! Angry because my family has been torn apart for MONEY. It is obvious to me going by the responses by the police that they are in cahoots with SS to forcibly seperate children from families and maintain the seperation by not giving parents the opportunity to raise legitimate concerns with a public service that was chartered to PROTECT THE INNOCENT and UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE LAND (NOT protect criminals using the Law of the Sea!). This situation severely undermines public trust in the police and encourages vigilanteism. I do not for one minute consider vigilanteism an invalid response at this stage if it means getting my children out of the danger they have found themselves in through no fault oftheir own, for the past year.

– On the subject of school events: We are made aware of school events in which our children are involved – not by the school, but by the parents of other children! We get NOTHING from the school unless we turn up ourselves and demand it (eg term reports, parents’ evenings, open assemblies etc), which suggests to me that we are being deliberately frozen out. What makes this even more insidious is the fact that during the last two LACR meetings the subject of school changes was raised, to which I made clear my position in no uncertain terms: changing the children’s schools is NOT an option under ANY circumstances while they are in care, it being further evidence of SS’ attempts to further alienate our own flesh and blood from us. Aside from that, the fact is we are STILL waiting for the EOY reports for Nathanael from the Nottingham Emmanuel School – why is it being withheld?

– The boys have just had their first birthdays away from home. How would you the reader feel if your children had been taken forcibly from your home, and have to cope with that feeling of utter despair when their birthday doesn’t happen to land on a contact day? Or Christmas? We had no Christmas as such last year. What was the point? Worse than that the fact that we had to further deal with not having ANY contact with our children THROUGHOUT the Christmas holiday – not even a poxy phone call! Turn it around: how would YOU feel if YOU were a child having to spend every day, but especially special days like these, away from your own flesh and blood?

Please, if you have read this far, consider what YOU as a FLESH AND BLOOD HUMAN BEING can do in YOUR position of influence (be it local or national authority, media, whatever) to STOP this treatment of these three children and influence Government policy to prevent the same happening to others – and remember also that this is NOT something you can throw more Statutes at, we have more than enough Statutes covering the abuse, all it requires is proper application of those Statutes, of Common Law, of common sense and for the public to be made aware of what is happening to our children and the fact that it could just as easily be THEIR children. Or even YOUR children!

Yours Sincerely,

James of the First-line Family of Moore
Common Law Free Man of the Land of England

Pen Camcorder also available at Maplins

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 9:42 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

Product Description

Pen CamcorderPen Camcorder

This cool new gadget allows you to record up to 16 hours of video and sound directly to the pen’s built-in flash drive. This device looks and writes like a regular pen, so no one will know you are actually recording! This is made possible by a micro DVR (digital video recorder) that is built into the pen. Simply press the button on the bottom of the pen to begin capturing footage.

The possibilities are endless:

http://www.pencamcorder.co.uk/products.php?product=Mini-Pen-DVR-Camcorder-4GB

  • Record your special moments without a bulky camcorder
  • Bring to museums, art galleries, or trade shows for discreet recording
  • Perfect for on-the-go video journalists
  • Bring it everywhere you go to quickly capture any moment.This camera pen is easy to use and features a pinhole camera, making it ideal for discreet and undetected recording.

    When you are done recording, simply unscrew the pen to reveal a standard USB drive. Just plug the drive into your PC’s USB port to view or transfer your captured footage, making it easy to archive or email your video files. Connecting the drive to your computer will also recharge the camera pen, or you can use the included wall charger.

    This camera pen records AVI video clips with a video resolution of 352×288 pixels and also works as a 2 mega pixel camera as well. In addition, this fully functional ball point pen provides smooth writing with black ink that can be replaced with standard refills.
    Features

    • CMOS pinhole camera and micro DVR built into a pen

    • Looks and writes with a normal pen – no one will know you are actually recording

    • Pen unscrews to reveal a USB drive that you can connect to your PC

    • Stores up to 16 hours of video at a time, which can be archived on your computer

    • Built-in Lithium polymer battery can be charged via USB

    • Up to 3 hour battery life per charge

    • Simple, easy to use one-touch recording – just point and shoot!

    • Stylish black and silver design

      List of Contents: DVR Pen Camcorder, USB cable, software CD, user’s manual, 1 year warranty.


EXPOSING CORRUPT EXPERT WITNESS DR GEORGE HIBBERT……………. keeps trying to complain to wordpress for defamation ………. im not defaming you i have copied and pasted what others have said ……. reset to public view ……. sue me

THIS POST HAS BEEN MARKED PRIVATE BY WORDPRESS.COM STAFF IN RESPONSE TO A DEFAMATION COMPLAINT.

I cannot divulge my own case at the moment as it is currently under investigation but i believe this Dr is making alot of money by writing unfavourable reports about parents to secure that he still gets plenty of work from the secret family courts.

Organisations seeking information on him and others are

This is an urgent request for information on the experts in both Public and Private law proceedings from ELC http://www.elc.org.uk and FLINT http://www.familieslink.co.uk.We are seeking information on the following experts whom we have concern about;
Dr. George Hibbert of Tadpole cottage and Windmill Hill centers who is an adult psychiatrist.
Professor Zeitlin
Dr. Bentovim
Dr. Mumford
Further areas we are extremely worried about are play therapy, personality disorders and diagnosis, drugging children with drugs such as Ritalin and similar drugs (almost half a million UK children are on such drugs for ADHD) and Prozac.
We will accept material on all other experts working in family law and/ or with children whose procedures and actions are suspect. Please note all information will be treated confidentially and neither your family nor children will be identified but we will identify the expert and his or her allies etc. A legal letter of authority will have to be signed before we can accept the material for consideration.
Past story about his underhanded methods
Melanie’s Cornwall
County Council hell
Cornwall’s Corrupt County Council
In November Cornwall County Council
Social Services told Melanie she could
not look after her own children, and forced
her out of her parents house. Mr and Mrs
Garvey, in their 40’s and experienced parents,
with six lovely daughters of their own,
four now grown up, continued to look after
them.
In December 2005 a Dr Metcalfe put Melanie
on heavy medication for over a year
(600mg a day of Quietepane “enough to
bring a grown man to his knees”). In May
2006 social worker Ken Phillips came to
their house and left saying “I’m off on a
snatch now.” That was a foretaste of the
future.
Snatched by Ken Phillips
In June 2006, Social Services snatched
Melanie’s two children, both under four
years old, from the safety of the Garvey’s
loving family home and put them in foster
care with a view to having them adopted.
They were devastated.
A Dr Choudry wrote a report in September
2006 saying Melanie had learning
difficulties. This is extraordinary; Melanie
has 10 GCSE’s, and a City and Guilds in
hairdressing and beauty treatments. He also
accused her of substance abuse; she’s never
taken harmful substances and has hair
strand analysis reports to prove it.
Threats by Social Services
Then Melanie was told she would have
to live with her children in an assessment
centre in Swindon, Wiltshire if she wanted
them back. After a further 4 months she
passed the assessment with flying colours,
even though drugged with Quietepane
while being assessed. Cornwall County
Council said they would stop the adoption
and look for a house for Melanie. Mr
and Mrs Garvey suggested a second house
owned by a family member, and then a flat
they could rent. Cornwall County Council
rejected both.
Just before Melanie left the assessment
centre one of the staff verbally assaulted
her son and shook him violently, and Melanie
complained. Dr Hibbert, who runs the
assessment centre, changed the report from
good to bad. Ken Phillips and Dr Hibbert
got Melanie in a room and told her she had
to sign the children over for adoption or
they would be split up and put in different
foster homes. Melanie, who said she feels
like a zombie on Quietepane, still had the
sense to refuse.
Isolated and controlled
This has been the pattern; each time Melanie,
or her family, try to stand up for her,
Social Services wreak their vengeance on
Melanie tenfold. With their threats against
her children, they control her completely.
In February 2007 Melanie and the
children were moved in with a foster family
in an isolated hamlet north of Dartmoor.
There are three caged dogs in the house
which concern her. Ken Phillips has seen
them; is that why he chose that foster family?
When her family complained Phillips
visited and again threatened Melanie with
the children being moved up country and
being split up.
Rigged trial No. 1
Melanie spent the 19th to the 23rd March
2007 in Truro County Court. Cornwall
County Council had a barrage of “Expert
witnesses” falsifying their statements to
Continued on Page 6
EU methods and corruption are sweeping through our councils, courts and legal profession.Independent
Melanie’s hell from Page 1
suit the Social Services line. The trial was
effectively rigged – the only person to speak
up for Melanie was the CAF-CAS representative.
Judge Vincent ruled in favour of
the council – we ask is he incompetent or a
member of Common Purpose?
The barrister appointed for her was equally
useless, and Melanie quotes her as saying
“I’m off to get my money now; don’t worry
you’ll see your children in 16 years.” (Barristers
have to get a legal aid signature from
the court before they can be paid.)
The Judge granted Cornwall County
Council both a care order and a placement
order for adoption. Now Melanie had lost
her children, the Garveys were told she
would be taken off the Quietepane – but now
she seems to be back on it.
Injunction – Statement under duress
Social Services staff had recommended
Foot Anstey, Plymouth Solicitors to represent
Melanie. They did not seem to present
any evidence in her favour her or fight her
corner in court. In fact their main contribution
has been to write threatening letters to
Mr. Garvey, and get an injunction against
him to force him out of the proceedings and
the appeal hearing altogether, to further isolate
Melanie. She phoned to say she was under
duress when they took her statement.
Foot Anstey have completed Melanie’s
isolation; she’s cut off from all avenues of
help.
The solicitors organised an appeal on
the 9th May 2007 at the Appeal Court in
the Strand, Westminster London. The court
costs were astronomical – and delayed matters
further by ruling for a full retrial in
July. The total costs to your taxes are probably
already over a million; clearly Social
Service plan a larger jackpot on this case.
The Garvey’s have seen the Barristers fees
quoted at £35,000 resulting in one hour in
court.
Police threats to Paul Garvey
As all Paul Garvey’s attempts to get his
grandchildren back through official channels
have been blocked, he has put signs
up on the main A39 and outside his house
telling the public Cornwall County Council
are child snatchers. The police are threatening
to arrest him, and called round several
times; Mr Garvey had the good sense to be
out or hide and pretend he was out.
Demonstrating, with or without signs,
is of course not an offence. But under the
governments new legislation he could be arrested
on this trumped up charge – or indeed
no charge at all, and held for 18 days. Every
knock on the door is a worry – presumably
that was the intent behind the threat.
Malicious arrest warrant
That injunction was pure character assassination,
and prevents him from doing things
Mr Garvey would never do, but much of
which Foot Anstey are doing right now, including
harming his daughter. Mr Garvey is
now not allowed to see Melanie.
Foot Anstey then falsely accused Mr
Garvey of breaking their injunction, and set
a warrant for arrest hearing with three days
notice. Melanie was in court, guarded by
three staff, to ensure she could not get help
or speak to her family.
The trial date was set for 6th June. This
necessitates employing a solicitor to defend,
and Mr Garvey’s been quoted £5,000
in fees. The crooked solicitors’ cartel wins
again. But the simple fact is he has almost
no chance of a fair trial, with most of the
judges hand in glove with the solicitors. We
are watching perversion of the course of justice
up close.
Staff responsible for this abuse
The Director of the Social Services division
for children is Dean Ashton. He knows
all about this case. We have documentary
evidence that Cornwall County Council is
working to adoption targets – they plan to
snatch children regardless of the rights or
wrongs of the case.
Maurice Emberson is his assistant, and denied
this abuse is happening in reply to both
the front page of the Falmouth Packet newspaper,
and their columnist, the Skipper, who
rightly deplored Cornwall County Council
Social Services actions in this matter.
Alex Dashwood is Phillips’ manager,
(and stated Melanie had “a severe learning
difficulty” which is a lie.) These two seem
more like sadists than social workers, and
in our view should not be allowed to work
with children.
The council buries complaints
Mr and Mrs Garvey have been to the Council
Complaints Department. The Garveys
were warned no one who’s children have
been snatched get past the first level of three
levels, and their complaints are buried. Elisabeth
Taylor and Gill Dunstan are the Council
complaints managers.
The Head of Council Legal Services is
Richard Williams, in it are Karen Jackson,
Ian Kennaway, Deborah Stoleworthy; they
know what’s going on and allow this horror
to continue.
Mr and Mrs Garvey have been to the top –
to the Ombudsman, who won’t be involved
until the case is decided. By the time he consents
to be involved, the children are usually
adopted and its too late.
Fire these abusive staff
We ask Cornwall County Council that Dean
Aston, Maurice Emberson, Alex Dashwood,
Ken Phillips, are fired immediately without
compensation, and barred from all government
or public posts for life. It appears their
actions are closer to embezzlement and child
abuse than social work.
We ask for an investigation into the extent
to which Elisabeth Taylor, Gill Dunstan,
Richard Williams, Karen Jackson, Ian Kennaway,
Deborah Stoleworthy have perpetrated
this miscarriage of justice.
We ask that Cornwall County Council bar
members of Common Purpose, which is behind
this and most council corruption, from
both public office and employment within
the council.
We ask that Foot Anstey be barred from
all council, legal aid and public contracts
until those involved, such as Nicki Cozens,
have been dismissed from the firm, and their
fees for this “work” be withheld.
Criminal charges against social services
We ask the police and Crown Prosecution
Service to investigate all the above on
charges of abusing children and the fraudulent
misuse of public funds. Providing there
are enough honest, non Common Purpose
people left in the police and CPS to carry
out a lawful and proper investigation.
We ask that a permanent restraining order
be put on Social Services, preventing them
from contacting Melanie or her children at
any time, now or in the future.
Sheila Healy and David Whalley
The two people ultimately responsible are
Cornwall County Council’s chief Executive,
Sheila Healy, and David Whalley, the council
leader, both Common Purpose. We ask
for the resignation of both Healy and Whalley
for encouraging this horrific abuse and
fraud in scores of similar and worse cases,
to go on unchecked.
And finally we ask Cornwall County
Council that Melanie and her two children
are immediately returned to the loving family
home from which they were stolen.
Luke 17:2 “It were better for them that
a millstone were hanged about their
neck, and be cast into the sea, than
that they should harm one of these
little ones.”
other people that have contacted me comment …
Dear Jane,
Thankyou for geting back to me so fast. I have had personal experience of this Dr and believe his methadology to be flawed and harmful to those involved in the sensitive area of child care proceedings. I have a vested personal interest. I did not want to go into too much detail as I was not sure how publicly the message would be displayed. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask. I hope to hear from you soon.
Miss H
Dear Jane,
I understand your concern. I feel exactly the same. Without going into too much detail as I still worry about the privacy of emails etc. I am someone who is in the middle of care proceedings. The local autority had agreed my child was returing home and I had one assessment with this man and everything changed. I am now in court desperately fighting for my child. His report on me has been described by other professionals as “barbaric”, “flawed”, and “unorthodox”.  I hope this helps to put your mind at rest a little.
Miss H
Dear Jane,
I am so very grateful you got back to me. I thought I was on my own with all this. I can’t believe what is happening to myself and my son as a result of this man’s report. He misquoted me, generalised, some of what he wrote was tantemount to slander. He was rude to me, and had not even been supplied with the proper background information. The local authority seemed shocked when they got his report, but they had to take action as he criticised their decision to return my son to me without an “expert opinion first”. I would be very happy to discuss any part of my case with you. Maybe it would be possible to talk on the phone. Seeing your request for info on him and knowing their are others who feel the same has made a real difference to me. I hope we can stay in contact. Thankyou again.
Miss H
Hi Jane
Dr Hibbert certainly needs investigating. I believe he will not allow a government inspection team to view any of his records and he only allows them to inspect his premises. he’s probably got a lot to hide. I believe the government body is ofsted.
I hope you hear from the GMC soon. If you do get any information please let me know because it will be helpful to me.
Many thanks.
M.A.
It is of help to me me that that I know that you were in Tadpole Cottage and actually got Dr Hibberts evidence overturned. Unfortunately the information you have given me has so far not been enough to halt the process of the young lady going into Tadpole Cottage. As far as the social services are concerned they have no ‘evidence’ of any wrong doing.
A little about me I am the ex-foster carer of the young lady in question. She was with us for about 9months when she was 15yrs old. We were not given the full reasons for why she was placed in care (her first time) or I would have fought for her not to go home (she did not want to go). She has had a really bad time but from my observations and involvement with her she is an amazing mum who has just not had the love and support of her own family.
I was a foster carer for in excess of 20 years and also a family aide for 5years. I loved my job helping children and families. On more than one occasion I have had cause to disagree with social services decisions and had to act against them. One of whom said of a cleared parent that they had ‘ONLY BEEN FOUND INNOCENT IN THE EYE OF THE LAW’. For daring to do this my husband and I were ‘rested’ for about 6months for not having a full understanding of ‘the role of the social services’. There are good social workers and foster carers out there but there are also some who are really bad, who I would not trust or leave my dog with!
I have many stories about my time with social services that I have decided to write and talk about when this case is over. There are some good stories but they are are outweighed by sad ones.
I have been on the freedom of information sight that you have used. (it came up when I typed in Dr Hibbert and Tadpole Cottage). I will follow this to see if you get all the information you need.
I don’t know if you can answer this for me, but when your baby was taken away did you immediately appeal? Having met Dr Hibbert I am amazed that you have done so well. Have you done all the research and represented yourself? or do you have a very good solicitor and/or barrister.
When you have finished with your case (hopefully you will win) I would really be obliged if you could let me know the outcome as I feel we may have to go down the same road.
Thank you
Cathy
Jane , I found your comments whilst looking for information
about Dr George Hibbert and Tadpole Cottage. I have concerns after
a visit with a young mother who might be going into tadpole cottage
with her baby and would like to know of any information there is
available. I am worried as we feel she could be being ‘set up to
fail’. Do you know where I can find any statistics for his success
rate?
Yours,
Ms Fromow
Research by Dr Hibbert
Shrinking the Lawyers
January 19, 2008 by familoo
There is a really interesting article in the December issue of Family Law (Fam Law [2007] 1107) entitled ‘Attachment Problems Among Lawyers’. In it Dr George Hibbert, a consultant Psychiatrist, writes about the issue of attachment in the family courts.
.
Ordinarily family lawyers come across attachment theory in expert court reports, particularly in care proceedings, where the attachment between parent and child is explored, and often attachment problems in children are identified. This article however looks at the impact of attachment issues in litigant parents and legal professionals may affect or be affected by the legal process.
.
Its easy to see that in cases where there are difficulties in parenting leading to attachment problems in a child there is likely to be an element of attachment difficulty in the parent(s) perhaps arising from their own childhood and experience of being parented. Where else do we learn how to parent but from our own parents – for better or for worse. And family lawyers have much first hand experience of how a parent’s own psychological and emotional makeup or difficulties impacts upon their ability to handle and understand the court process and to work with and get the most from their lawyers. The family court system is difficult to handle for most of us, but as this article rightly points out it is the challenging, probing nature of the family court system into the very private or very personal, and the constraints of the formal process which litigants find extremely hard to accept or work within.
.
What is most interesting however, is Dr Hibbert’s remarks about attachment problems in lawyers themselves, particularly the susceptibility of some lawyers to manipulation by dyfunctional clients with their own attachment issues. He suggests that clients with attachment difficulties may be expert at manipulating the feelings of other including their lawyers. I for one certainly recognise the scenario where a lawyer loses his or her objectivity and is unable to maintain a professional distance from the client. It often results in aggressive or inappropriate behaviour in discussions and negotiations between counsel and an inability to properly consider proposals for compromise. It appears to affect some lawyers in particular cases, whilst other lawyers adopt this over-personalised approach to counsel-to-counsel discussions as a feature of their representational style, taking on the persona of their client, and taking points against them as personal affronts. My heart sinks when I receive and read a brief which is full of righteous outrage on behalf of the hard-done by client – this is often a portent of a one-sided approach to the case which blinds the solicitor to the weaknesses of the case and puts counsel in the insidious position of having to impart bad news without support from the solicitor. For some lawyers this approach to client care appears to be a deliberate choice, the result of a belief that believeing a client or accepting their point of view is a core part of the professional service. I tend to disagree – the job of a lawyer, of counsel in particular, is to advise the client objectively and to represent the clients view or interests as best as is possible, regardless of one’s own opinion or viewpoint. Often that involves telling a client extremely unpalatable things, which can put a strain on a professional relationship. That however is far better than the decidedly unpleasant experience of explaining after the event why something utterly unexpected has happened to a client whose unrealistic expectations have not been tempered in advance.
.
Dr Hibbert cautions against becoming drawn in by clients, on becoming too emotionally involved in a case to meet one’s own emotional or attachment needs. I am sure that this is a real danger for even the most psychologically stable of us, and I for one can recognise cases where I have been far more strongly affected and more heavily invested in the outcome than in others, none thankfully where I think I have overstepped the invisible line. I for one find it hard to identify why a particular case has drawn me in and affected me, but I do recognise it when it happens. And in my experience this heightened empathy is as often for the family as a whole or the children as it is for the parent-client him/herself.
.
Where I begin to disagree with Dr Hibbert’s article is this: he says that a professional who is seriously affected by the client’s attachment behaviour ‘will no longer be able to assist the court in finding a good solution for the children because he / she has become an extension of the dysfunctional client..[and]…the professional’s greater articulacy, knowledge of the system and professional weight add credibility and power to the client’s dysfunctional voice’. I think this is to confuse the role of expert, whose role is to give their opinion by way of advice to the court, with the role of lawyer, whose role is precisely to amplify the client’s voice (dysfunctional or not) without regard to their own opinion. It is the role of the court, having heard all the expert evidence and all the representations made on behalf of the various parties (all of whom will have a lawyer representing their own view of the matter with equal force), to decide what is right decision. Not only is it not part of our role as professionals to judge our client’s viewpoint, but we are simply not qualified to properly assess how dysfunctional our clients are save in the most crude way based upon our day-to-day experience.
.
Towards the end of his article, Dr Hibbert goes so far as to warn us against being drawn by clients ‘into complicity with continued child abuse’.All of us in the family courts want the best for the children involved in these sorry cases. But we also want what is best for our clients. And we are employed to do our best to represent that client. It is the Judge who is paid to bear the burden of ensuring that the child’s interests are met. I am not sure if this was the intention but the article appears to suggest that in doing our job properly and with equal vigour for the sensible and the misguided, the balanced and the dysfunctional, we may should be critised as complicit with child abuse. That is an unfair burden to place upon lawyers and the wrong approach to parents – it is perhaps those parents with the biggest emotional and psychological problems who need most to have assistance from lawyers in order to articulate their position and wishes clearly, and to ensure that the decision of the court is based upon a proper and full exploration of all the factors bearing upon a complex case.

Legal Abuse Syndrome suffered By Parents Courtesy of Social Services and The Family Courts

Synopsis of Legal Abuse Syndrome
Legal Abuse Syndrome is a 234 page book which discusses the effects of, and steps to recovery from Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS), which the author has defined as a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from abusive and protracted litigation.
Anyone subjected to the abuses of the American civil justice system will immediately identify with the cover and quotations appearing on the back cover of the book.
Ms. Huffer begins in the Preface by defining LAS, and in the Introduction identifies seven LAS victims whose stories she has woven into a highly readable self-help book for other victims of LAS.  Legal Abuse Syndrome also doubles as a text book for mental health professionals providing therapy to LAS victims.
The book is divided into 10 chapters.  Beginning in Chapters 1 and 2, Huffer identifies the symptoms of the LAS victim and the etiology of LAS.  These two introductory chapters are followed by 8 chapters in which the author breaks down the Eight Steps to Recovery, consisting of Debriefing, Grieving, Obsession, Blaming, Deshaming, Reframing, Empowerment and Recovery.
Each chapter begins with a relevant quote which sets the stage for the material presented.  The book concludes with Maya Angelou’s powerful poem, “I rise.”
CHAPTER SUMMARIES
Chapter 1 – “Invisible Hostages” reveals the hostage condition that results from betrayals of trust and the quiet crimes.  Symptoms of the hostage-stage psychological reactions are put forth with a list of the white-collar crimes, litigation/judicial atrocities and bureaucratic failings that cumulatively assault victims.  The case of James graphically portrays the path from the initial affront through the aftermath of the crime.  James went to law enforcement agencies, sued through the courts at huge expense, and found his situation worsened to the point of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  Chapter 1 includes one cartoon and two illustrations.
Chapter 2 – “The Epidemic” illustrates the chemical changes that take place in the brain during prolonged victimization.  It becomes clear that a profound sense of helplessness in the face of jeopardy causes post traumatic stress disorder.  The longer the feeling of helplessness lasts, the more pronounced are the symptoms.  Victims find themselves in the symptoms as they relate to their own experiences.  James shares that at the time he needed the protection of his judicial system, it betrayed him.  He was left unable to obtain justice.  Extensive research supports the theory that “psycholegal” post traumatic stress disorder is a common occurrence in litigants and victims of the invisible crimes.  The reader can look around and see the “cellophane-wrapped” victims who have moved beyond rage to an implosive, cyclical lifestyle.  These victims usually remain invisible.  The chapter includes one illustration.
Chapter 3 – “Debriefing” begins the second part of the book, the eight steps to recovery.  Debriefing is an activity that the reader can do.   It centers around a graphic, processing sheet that delineates losses, feelings and facts.  This chapter begins a caring journey.  The sense of isolation is relieved in victims as they see their experience(s) begin to take a manageable form.  The case of P.J., who broke through denial during debriefing helps us understand how to effectively respond to victims.  This chapter also lists “absolutely what not to say to a victim.”  The chapter includes one illustration and two reader participation graphics.
Chapter 4 – “Grieving” clarifies that loss of trust is the greatest loss known to a human being.  The case of Judy demonstrates the profound effect of bureaucratic and law enforcement behavior on a victim.  Judy had to face the FBI, the IRS, and court after a betrayal by her husband.  Grieving masques as depression (the common cold of mental illness), exhaustion, varied illnesses and conditions.  Grieving over loss of property is usually discounted in American culture.  “Takings” have become a part of business strategy and are often done through the use of the system.  Bankruptcy court, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the IRS effect takings of property without due process.  Takings threaten the lifeblood of the nation.  The case of John depicts the nebulous nature of grief.  It is pushed aside if the loss is not “respectably” large.  John breaks down over a tiny tangible issue that, in fact, reflects huge intangible losses.  In this chapter we see that the loss of belief systems, trust, and ideals are critical to the loss picture.  Each case will show that our protective systems did not function as intended, and inadvertently or by design, intensified the trauma.  Legal Abuse Syndrome , a journey Beyond Rage… and Back, articulates that the right to redress in order to prevent losses and to exact recompense is key to a sense of safety and security necessary for mental health.
Chapter 5 – “Obsession” leads us toward a sense of control over our lives again.  Readers become aware that obsession is a natural response to victimization.  Randomization is a difficult concept to grasp in life.  When good people are assaulted and left unaffirmed by their culture’s systems, life proceeds on a path with no moral compass – no guide to safety.  A list of obsessive styles is characterized by descriptive names, i.e. “Lifeguard,” obsesses around health; where as an “Inventorier” counts and accounts for all belongings, endlessly.  What to do about easing obsession is listed with case examples.  A sense of humor interweaves as victims look at their obsessive selves with acceptance.
Chapter 6 – “Blaming” faces victim-blaming head on.  Society discourages blaming; therefore, victims are praised for taking responsibility for the awful things that happen to them.  Further, victims often see little recourse once blame is established.  Attribution is a necessary step toward justice because it reinforces the moral code.  This chapter gives a victim a graphic for assessing degrees of blame and then enriches the reader with specific blaming actions dramatized by James and the other cases.  Barriers to blaming are explored, such as guilt and societal pressure.  There is a self-blame checklist followed by the danger of self blame.  Revenge and punishment are contrasted with appropriate, quality blaming actions which drive behavior toward the moral code.  Those ignored, outrageous assaults by attorneys and the systems, such as slander and character assassination in the courtroom and denied right to redress, are listed at the end of the chapter.  Victims begin to feel that they are not crazy or at fault.  This chapter includes a reader participation check list.
Chapter 7 – “Deshaming” offers a totally unique approach to understanding human motivation in terms of power.  A continuum is presented which ranks a person’s motivating force as either conscience-based or power-based.  Human interactions can be visualized as on a grid.  The conscience-based person is often victimized even though he may have spiritual power.  Power-based people are motivated by envy and a need for superior posture.  Lying is a key tool of the power motivated person.  Lying wins over truth.  Here is where violation of the moral code is “business as usual” for some and an outrage to others.  Shame is known to the conscience-based person,who often absorbs shame from the violator as well.  A tournament of the game, “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” is used as an example of strategies that help conscience-based people learn to identify and cope with power-based individuals.  Specific skills are taught regarding cooperation, competition, and self-protection.  Thus, to free them from shame, the readers are able to relinquish undeserved shame and to follow guiding principles for modification of their belief systems.  The case of Manny exemplifies the predicament and the process for deshaming.  The chapter includes two illustrations.
Chapter 8 – “Reframing” is the pivotal procedure that embarks upon recovery.  All five steps leading to reframing are required to effectively achieve this phase.  The victim shifts from a painful perception of self to a new, open, morally sound and personally inspired view of himself.  There is an LAS Reframe Exercise which allows the painful issue to come forth.  Then the pain is put to the reframe steps.  The victim might say, “I was a fool.”  Reframed, the victim will say, “I was a trustworthy person, I believed that others were largely trustworthy too.”  Then the victim searches for the wisdom gained from the experience.  The chapter includes one reader participation checklist.
Chapter 9 – “Empowerment” more than anything, brings a fresh approach for legal and bureaucratic problem solving to the ordinary person.  Steps are blueprints:  1) seek and destroy misinformation, 2) from pragmatic expectations, 3) avoid the predictable, 4) persevere, 5) use mental toughness, 6) become a vigilante consumer, 7) call a crime a crime.  Misinformation is a strategic tool used by abusers of the justice systems.  It crushes the force of truth distorting the course towards justice.  Oppression thrives on misinformation.  Empowerment requires effective attacks on misinformation through official channels.  The predictable path is owned by the power-centered.  They travel ahead and prepare to take the conscience-centered person out at every turn.  Victims need each other and creative approaches.  This chapter ties into Appendix B which contains a host of resources.  Eleven tools and techniques are presented.  Rules and regulations of an institution are usually broken by those who abuse from within the organization.  Finding those violations empowers a victim tremendously.  Mental toughness is the ability to never lose focus regardless of attacks or diversions.  Vigilante consumers focus on the real bottom line in America, the consumer.  When crimes occur, they must be treated as crimes and dealt with by consumers who keep the focus on the real bottom line.  The chapter contains one graphic.
Chapter 10 – “Recovery” brings perspective.  Victims become veterans who have an important function in correcting societal wrongs.  Readers are brought up to date by parting words from the victims whose cases were portrayed in the book.  It becomes apparent that recovery is not a destination but a journey wherein the eight steps are incorporated into a renewed lifestyle.  Forgiveness and restoration are discussed as quite separate issues from recovery.  Veterans are no longer cellophane-wrapped hostages but are back in the game of life, risking once more.  Trust as a staple, societal issue is explored in the context of LAS being a totally preventable assault to the mental health of our nation.
In the Conclusion , Ms. Huffer thanks her patients who have trusted her and taught her that there is an invisible fabric woven of American character found in the ordinary person.  It is an invitation for these victims who refused to be soul-murdered to lead the nation back into a future of hope, trust and a code of American conduct that they represent to quietly.  The Epilogue contains a snapshot of an LAS victim that has been driven beyond rage.
The book includes a Bibliography which cites referenced and related works included as well as a Glossary of terms used in the book.
Appendix A defines clinical post traumatic stress disorder.
Appendix B – Resources for the Empowerment of the Ordinary Person.  This appendix provides the LAS victim with a list of organizations dedicated to legal reform and victim rights.
Appendix C – Victims-Witness Protection Act of 1984.
Appendix D contains worksheets to be used in conjunction with the book.
The following pages contain the Preface and Introduction as they appear in the actual book.
Preface
If you are deeply disillusioned and feeling oppressed as an American Citizen, resulting from experience with our justice system, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If you’ve been a litigant in court and justice was not to be obtained at any price, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If you fantasize an act of vigilante vengeance because it seems like the only recourse, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If you’ve reported a crime and found that you were punished instead of the criminal, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If creativity and dreams have been left in the past because their development was ripped from you and torn to shreds by your protective systems, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If you feel numb, disconnected, and vulnerable, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
If you feel that you have been victimized twice, once by a perpetrator and then by your protective system, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
Some will deny that Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS) exists.  They will remind us that we have an adversarial system of justice.  Abuses will be written off as adversaries battling for their clients.  Victims will be nothing more than casualties of a “fight for justice.”  Others will worry that victims of LAS will want compensation for their psychological injuries.  Skeptics will ask, “Aren’t LAS victims just malingerers wanting more from the system?”
I do not indict the legal profession, fine judges and hard working public servants.  I applaud those who serve their clients well in any milieu.  We do not bash any organization or profession in this book.  Lawyers, judges, FBI agents, police officers and investigators have all crossed my private practice and helped me to delineate the abuse of power that permeates every profession.  Many of these professionals are themselves invisible victims also and need the support of the public.
Abusers are studied in this book as a method of exposing to LAS victims the predicament that oppresses them.  The systems are explored in the light of victims’ experiences.  The psycholegal condition is revealed along with skills to help the victim cope with abusers of his systems.  The scope is a large one for a marriage and family therapist or or fellow victim to tackle.  It may feel unwieldy and threatening to the reader.  However, reading and rereading has produced results and has motivated me to risk a big project and perhaps an unpopular one in behalf of those invisible victims who can heal in spite of systems without a cure.
A firm warning to those who would use the following material to damage or discredit any citizen in any manner:
LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME IS A NATURAL AND NORMAL RESPONSE TO AN ABNORMAL, UNNATURAL, CUMULATIVE TRAUMA, AS WITH ALL POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDERS.  ANY ATTEMPT BY ANY PERSON TO DISCREDIT AN INDIVIDUAL’S TESTIMONY, CHARACTER, OR ACTIONS DUE TO THEIR SUFFERING FROM LAS IS TO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THE ABERRANT NATURE OF OUR SYSTEM OF PROBLEM-SOLVING.  ANY ALLY OF CIVILIAZATION MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY SUCH BEHAVIOR AS ABUSIVE, PUT A HALT TO DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS, AND DEVOTE THEIR ENERGIES TO RESTORATION OF VICTIMS OF THE “SYSTEMS”.
No one likes to think of himself as a victim.  Immediately, it conjures an image of a loser or someone making poor life-choices.    Yet, in spite of resistance to facing our victimization, legal abuses have become common.  When abuses occur, victims are created.  We either have to face that we are victimized or accept an aberration to civilized living as being “just the way it is”.
Laws provide for courts, agencies, law enforcement bureaucracies, and regulatory services.  We depend on them to resolve our disputes and to protect our cherished rights.  When they fail, our nation must deal with the victims and vigilantes left in the wake of officially sanctioned wrongdoing.
In this book, we will explore cases that are shocking and fascinating.  They illustrate abuses perpetrated by our legally instituted protective systems and the pain and suffering that results.  Citizens are driven “Beyond Rage.”  However startling and moving our cases may be, we have only touched a segment of their lives and experiences.  Each case has left unrevealed depth of trauma and complication that would be prohibitive in space and time to write about in one book.
This work results from my experiences of the past twenty years as a marriage and family therapist in private practice.  Throughout my career, a certain discomfort gnawed at me regarding clients who attended my various groups and seminars.  While the seminars dealt with the subjects of codependency, substance abuse, parenting, divorce adjustment, assertiveness, stress, or whatever the current topic dictated, there always remained the walking wounded.  Those were clients, whose true source of pain was not recognized by family or friends.  Worse, it was never clearly defined by helping professionals.  With no diagnosis, their condition could not be targeted for treatment.  Invisible trauma nebulously danced around the topics, never to be healed in these hungry participants.
It wasn’t until a white-collar crime was perpetrated on my family that I saw these walking wounded with uncomfortably opened eyes.  After nearly a decade of struggling with the justice system, and working with other such victims,I have concluded that the enormous betrayals and inefficiencies that make up bureaucratic post-crime experiences, are literally attacking the emotional health of this nation.  Victims have no satisfying place to turn.  Rage accumulates and its sequelae have reached epidemic proportions.
A therapist must, of course, check such observations against the danger of inaccurately projecting onto a client personal feelings or attitudes that go beyond the therapeutic use of self.  I have done that.  Even more uncomfortably now, i see the massive validation of my theory by participants in the “Beyond Rage” seminars.  Still theoretical, but deadly serious, is the thesis of this book that victims in America are, first, assaulted by crime and, secondly, by abuses of power and authority administered by the systems their tax dollars support to provide due process of law.  In short, they get a “double whammy.”
People of principle find their decency, trustworthiness, responsibility, and use of their courts trounced by systems that perpetrate judicial and bureaucratic atrocities.  Americans, who follow a code of conscience, encounter a profound imbalance between the abuses of power perpetrated by those entrusted with the systems and the prohibitive conscience of the ordinary person to violation of values and laws.  At the heart of this book is the threatened psychic underpinning of the American citizen which is tied into the Constitutionally protected rights that we depend upon.  To imperil the basic freedoms, which Americans are taught are their birthright, is to jeopardize conditions of trust and safety necessary for a healthy, productive life.
Victims challenge the finest of counseling techniques.  The lack of closure combines with prolonged, cruel, and unusual punishment exerted by the court system.  Ongoing strain of litigation then interfaces with psychological issues.  Diagnoses are tricky and dynamic.  Healing techniques and strategies are interrupted by the trauma of the proceedings or behaviors of court personnel.  Stress reduction training is of marginal value for a litigant who will regularly be administered another dose of outrage.  The best of family intervention is defeated if the family court renders a visitation arrangement that destroys continuity in the raising of the children or if the current custodial parent is harassed and stalked, unprotected by the law enforcement system.
Outrage is tough enough.  Beyond rage is terribly painful territory.  I caution the reader that to earnestly use this self-help material for healing purposes will be challenging.  On the other hand, if you choose to stay beyond rage, you exist in a type of living death.  So victims of the systems are caught between a tough place and a really hard place.  Go slowly, get involved in groups, if possible, but don’t let your lifeblood be stripped from you without a fight.  This book will help to get you back on your fighting feet.  You won’t change massive systems or reform your country in all likelihood.  However, when all of the trauma has been processed, you will become an empowered, effective individual again.
More and more, helping professionals are being confronted by “psycholegal” issues.  Patients are driven beyond rage over an extended period of time during which victims travel an isolated road.  The impact of the invisible assaults usually are ignored.
Vigilante violence results when the needs of the majority are not being met by the systems (Tucker).  What of the gentle and decent person who values a law abiding mode of life?  Unless the unique needs of these victims are identified and healing processes made accessible to them, the cost in pain, suffering, disillusionment, and shutdown of creativity to the individual and society is immeasurable.

Synopsis of Legal Abuse Syndrome
Legal Abuse Syndrome is a 234 page book which discusses the effects of, and steps to recovery from Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS), which the author has defined as a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from abusive and protracted litigation.
Anyone subjected to the abuses of the American civil justice system will immediately identify with the cover and quotations appearing on the back cover of the book.
Ms. Huffer begins in the Preface by defining LAS, and in the Introduction identifies seven LAS victims whose stories she has woven into a highly readable self-help book for other victims of LAS.  Legal Abuse Syndrome also doubles as a text book for mental health professionals providing therapy to LAS victims.
The book is divided into 10 chapters.  Beginning in Chapters 1 and 2, Huffer identifies the symptoms of the LAS victim and the etiology of LAS.  These two introductory chapters are followed by 8 chapters in which the author breaks down the Eight Steps to Recovery, consisting of Debriefing, Grieving, Obsession, Blaming, Deshaming, Reframing, Empowerment and Recovery.
Each chapter begins with a relevant quote which sets the stage for the material presented.  The book concludes with Maya Angelou’s powerful poem, “I rise.”
CHAPTER SUMMARIES
Chapter 1 – “Invisible Hostages” reveals the hostage condition that results from betrayals of trust and the quiet crimes.  Symptoms of the hostage-stage psychological reactions are put forth with a list of the white-collar crimes, litigation/judicial atrocities and bureaucratic failings that cumulatively assault victims.  The case of James graphically portrays the path from the initial affront through the aftermath of the crime.  James went to law enforcement agencies, sued through the courts at huge expense, and found his situation worsened to the point of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  Chapter 1 includes one cartoon and two illustrations.
Chapter 2 – “The Epidemic” illustrates the chemical changes that take place in the brain during prolonged victimization.  It becomes clear that a profound sense of helplessness in the face of jeopardy causes post traumatic stress disorder.  The longer the feeling of helplessness lasts, the more pronounced are the symptoms.  Victims find themselves in the symptoms as they relate to their own experiences.  James shares that at the time he needed the protection of his judicial system, it betrayed him.  He was left unable to obtain justice.  Extensive research supports the theory that “psycholegal” post traumatic stress disorder is a common occurrence in litigants and victims of the invisible crimes.  The reader can look around and see the “cellophane-wrapped” victims who have moved beyond rage to an implosive, cyclical lifestyle.  These victims usually remain invisible.  The chapter includes one illustration.
Chapter 3 – “Debriefing” begins the second part of the book, the eight steps to recovery.  Debriefing is an activity that the reader can do.   It centers around a graphic, processing sheet that delineates losses, feelings and facts.  This chapter begins a caring journey.  The sense of isolation is relieved in victims as they see their experience(s) begin to take a manageable form.  The case of P.J., who broke through denial during debriefing helps us understand how to effectively respond to victims.  This chapter also lists “absolutely what not to say to a victim.”  The chapter includes one illustration and two reader participation graphics.
Chapter 4 – “Grieving” clarifies that loss of trust is the greatest loss known to a human being.  The case of Judy demonstrates the profound effect of bureaucratic and law enforcement behavior on a victim.  Judy had to face the FBI, the IRS, and court after a betrayal by her husband.  Grieving masques as depression (the common cold of mental illness), exhaustion, varied illnesses and conditions.  Grieving over loss of property is usually discounted in American culture.  “Takings” have become a part of business strategy and are often done through the use of the system.  Bankruptcy court, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the IRS effect takings of property without due process.  Takings threaten the lifeblood of the nation.  The case of John depicts the nebulous nature of grief.  It is pushed aside if the loss is not “respectably” large.  John breaks down over a tiny tangible issue that, in fact, reflects huge intangible losses.  In this chapter we see that the loss of belief systems, trust, and ideals are critical to the loss picture.  Each case will show that our protective systems did not function as intended, and inadvertently or by design, intensified the trauma.  Legal Abuse Syndrome , a journey Beyond Rage… and Back, articulates that the right to redress in order to prevent losses and to exact recompense is key to a sense of safety and security necessary for mental health.
Chapter 5 – “Obsession” leads us toward a sense of control over our lives again.  Readers become aware that obsession is a natural response to victimization.  Randomization is a difficult concept to grasp in life.  When good people are assaulted and left unaffirmed by their culture’s systems, life proceeds on a path with no moral compass – no guide to safety.  A list of obsessive styles is characterized by descriptive names, i.e. “Lifeguard,” obsesses around health; where as an “Inventorier” counts and accounts for all belongings, endlessly.  What to do about easing obsession is listed with case examples.  A sense of humor interweaves as victims look at their obsessive selves with acceptance.
Chapter 6 – “Blaming” faces victim-blaming head on.  Society discourages blaming; therefore, victims are praised for taking responsibility for the awful things that happen to them.  Further, victims often see little recourse once blame is established.  Attribution is a necessary step toward justice because it reinforces the moral code.  This chapter gives a victim a graphic for assessing degrees of blame and then enriches the reader with specific blaming actions dramatized by James and the other cases.  Barriers to blaming are explored, such as guilt and societal pressure.  There is a self-blame checklist followed by the danger of self blame.  Revenge and punishment are contrasted with appropriate, quality blaming actions which drive behavior toward the moral code.  Those ignored, outrageous assaults by attorneys and the systems, such as slander and character assassination in the courtroom and denied right to redress, are listed at the end of the chapter.  Victims begin to feel that they are not crazy or at fault.  This chapter includes a reader participation check list.
Chapter 7 – “Deshaming” offers a totally unique approach to understanding human motivation in terms of power.  A continuum is presented which ranks a person’s motivating force as either conscience-based or power-based.  Human interactions can be visualized as on a grid.  The conscience-based person is often victimized even though he may have spiritual power.  Power-based people are motivated by envy and a need for superior posture.  Lying is a key tool of the power motivated person.  Lying wins over truth.  Here is where violation of the moral code is “business as usual” for some and an outrage to others.  Shame is known to the conscience-based person,who often absorbs shame from the violator as well.  A tournament of the game, “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” is used as an example of strategies that help conscience-based people learn to identify and cope with power-based individuals.  Specific skills are taught regarding cooperation, competition, and self-protection.  Thus, to free them from shame, the readers are able to relinquish undeserved shame and to follow guiding principles for modification of their belief systems.  The case of Manny exemplifies the predicament and the process for deshaming.  The chapter includes two illustrations.
Chapter 8 – “Reframing” is the pivotal procedure that embarks upon recovery.  All five steps leading to reframing are required to effectively achieve this phase.  The victim shifts from a painful perception of self to a new, open, morally sound and personally inspired view of himself.  There is an LAS Reframe Exercise which allows the painful issue to come forth.  Then the pain is put to the reframe steps.  The victim might say, “I was a fool.”  Reframed, the victim will say, “I was a trustworthy person, I believed that others were largely trustworthy too.”  Then the victim searches for the wisdom gained from the experience.  The chapter includes one reader participation checklist.
Chapter 9 – “Empowerment” more than anything, brings a fresh approach for legal and bureaucratic problem solving to the ordinary person.  Steps are blueprints:  1) seek and destroy misinformation, 2) from pragmatic expectations, 3) avoid the predictable, 4) persevere, 5) use mental toughness, 6) become a vigilante consumer, 7) call a crime a crime.  Misinformation is a strategic tool used by abusers of the justice systems.  It crushes the force of truth distorting the course towards justice.  Oppression thrives on misinformation.  Empowerment requires effective attacks on misinformation through official channels.  The predictable path is owned by the power-centered.  They travel ahead and prepare to take the conscience-centered person out at every turn.  Victims need each other and creative approaches.  This chapter ties into Appendix B which contains a host of resources.  Eleven tools and techniques are presented.  Rules and regulations of an institution are usually broken by those who abuse from within the organization.  Finding those violations empowers a victim tremendously.  Mental toughness is the ability to never lose focus regardless of attacks or diversions.  Vigilante consumers focus on the real bottom line in America, the consumer.  When crimes occur, they must be treated as crimes and dealt with by consumers who keep the focus on the real bottom line.  The chapter contains one graphic.
Chapter 10 – “Recovery” brings perspective.  Victims become veterans who have an important function in correcting societal wrongs.  Readers are brought up to date by parting words from the victims whose cases were portrayed in the book.  It becomes apparent that recovery is not a destination but a journey wherein the eight steps are incorporated into a renewed lifestyle.  Forgiveness and restoration are discussed as quite separate issues from recovery.  Veterans are no longer cellophane-wrapped hostages but are back in the game of life, risking once more.  Trust as a staple, societal issue is explored in the context of LAS being a totally preventable assault to the mental health of our nation.
In the Conclusion , Ms. Huffer thanks her patients who have trusted her and taught her that there is an invisible fabric woven of American character found in the ordinary person.  It is an invitation for these victims who refused to be soul-murdered to lead the nation back into a future of hope, trust and a code of American conduct that they represent to quietly.  The Epilogue contains a snapshot of an LAS victim that has been driven beyond rage.
The book includes a Bibliography which cites referenced and related works included as well as a Glossary of terms used in the book.
Appendix A defines clinical post traumatic stress disorder.
Appendix B – Resources for the Empowerment of the Ordinary Person.  This appendix provides the LAS victim with a list of organizations dedicated to legal reform and victim rights.
Appendix C – Victims-Witness Protection Act of 1984.
Appendix D contains worksheets to be used in conjunction with the book.
The following pages contain the Preface and Introduction as they appear in the actual book.
Preface
If you are deeply disillusioned and feeling oppressed as an American Citizen, resulting from experience with our justice system, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If you’ve been a litigant in court and justice was not to be obtained at any price, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If you fantasize an act of vigilante vengeance because it seems like the only recourse, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If you’ve reported a crime and found that you were punished instead of the criminal, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If creativity and dreams have been left in the past because their development was ripped from you and torn to shreds by your protective systems, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If you feel numb, disconnected, and vulnerable, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.If you feel that you have been victimized twice, once by a perpetrator and then by your protective system, you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome.Some will deny that Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS) exists.  They will remind us that we have an adversarial system of justice.  Abuses will be written off as adversaries battling for their clients.  Victims will be nothing more than casualties of a “fight for justice.”  Others will worry that victims of LAS will want compensation for their psychological injuries.  Skeptics will ask, “Aren’t LAS victims just malingerers wanting more from the system?”
I do not indict the legal profession, fine judges and hard working public servants.  I applaud those who serve their clients well in any milieu.  We do not bash any organization or profession in this book.  Lawyers, judges, FBI agents, police officers and investigators have all crossed my private practice and helped me to delineate the abuse of power that permeates every profession.  Many of these professionals are themselves invisible victims also and need the support of the public.
Abusers are studied in this book as a method of exposing to LAS victims the predicament that oppresses them.  The systems are explored in the light of victims’ experiences.  The psycholegal condition is revealed along with skills to help the victim cope with abusers of his systems.  The scope is a large one for a marriage and family therapist or or fellow victim to tackle.  It may feel unwieldy and threatening to the reader.  However, reading and rereading has produced results and has motivated me to risk a big project and perhaps an unpopular one in behalf of those invisible victims who can heal in spite of systems without a cure.
A firm warning to those who would use the following material to damage or discredit any citizen in any manner:
LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME IS A NATURAL AND NORMAL RESPONSE TO AN ABNORMAL, UNNATURAL, CUMULATIVE TRAUMA, AS WITH ALL POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDERS.  ANY ATTEMPT BY ANY PERSON TO DISCREDIT AN INDIVIDUAL’S TESTIMONY, CHARACTER, OR ACTIONS DUE TO THEIR SUFFERING FROM LAS IS TO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THE ABERRANT NATURE OF OUR SYSTEM OF PROBLEM-SOLVING.  ANY ALLY OF CIVILIAZATION MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY SUCH BEHAVIOR AS ABUSIVE, PUT A HALT TO DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS, AND DEVOTE THEIR ENERGIES TO RESTORATION OF VICTIMS OF THE “SYSTEMS”.
No one likes to think of himself as a victim.  Immediately, it conjures an image of a loser or someone making poor life-choices.    Yet, in spite of resistance to facing our victimization, legal abuses have become common.  When abuses occur, victims are created.  We either have to face that we are victimized or accept an aberration to civilized living as being “just the way it is”.
Laws provide for courts, agencies, law enforcement bureaucracies, and regulatory services.  We depend on them to resolve our disputes and to protect our cherished rights.  When they fail, our nation must deal with the victims and vigilantes left in the wake of officially sanctioned wrongdoing.
In this book, we will explore cases that are shocking and fascinating.  They illustrate abuses perpetrated by our legally instituted protective systems and the pain and suffering that results.  Citizens are driven “Beyond Rage.”  However startling and moving our cases may be, we have only touched a segment of their lives and experiences.  Each case has left unrevealed depth of trauma and complication that would be prohibitive in space and time to write about in one book.
This work results from my experiences of the past twenty years as a marriage and family therapist in private practice.  Throughout my career, a certain discomfort gnawed at me regarding clients who attended my various groups and seminars.  While the seminars dealt with the subjects of codependency, substance abuse, parenting, divorce adjustment, assertiveness, stress, or whatever the current topic dictated, there always remained the walking wounded.  Those were clients, whose true source of pain was not recognized by family or friends.  Worse, it was never clearly defined by helping professionals.  With no diagnosis, their condition could not be targeted for treatment.  Invisible trauma nebulously danced around the topics, never to be healed in these hungry participants.
It wasn’t until a white-collar crime was perpetrated on my family that I saw these walking wounded with uncomfortably opened eyes.  After nearly a decade of struggling with the justice system, and working with other such victims,I have concluded that the enormous betrayals and inefficiencies that make up bureaucratic post-crime experiences, are literally attacking the emotional health of this nation.  Victims have no satisfying place to turn.  Rage accumulates and its sequelae have reached epidemic proportions.
A therapist must, of course, check such observations against the danger of inaccurately projecting onto a client personal feelings or attitudes that go beyond the therapeutic use of self.  I have done that.  Even more uncomfortably now, i see the massive validation of my theory by participants in the “Beyond Rage” seminars.  Still theoretical, but deadly serious, is the thesis of this book that victims in America are, first, assaulted by crime and, secondly, by abuses of power and authority administered by the systems their tax dollars support to provide due process of law.  In short, they get a “double whammy.”
People of principle find their decency, trustworthiness, responsibility, and use of their courts trounced by systems that perpetrate judicial and bureaucratic atrocities.  Americans, who follow a code of conscience, encounter a profound imbalance between the abuses of power perpetrated by those entrusted with the systems and the prohibitive conscience of the ordinary person to violation of values and laws.  At the heart of this book is the threatened psychic underpinning of the American citizen which is tied into the Constitutionally protected rights that we depend upon.  To imperil the basic freedoms, which Americans are taught are their birthright, is to jeopardize conditions of trust and safety necessary for a healthy, productive life.
Victims challenge the finest of counseling techniques.  The lack of closure combines with prolonged, cruel, and unusual punishment exerted by the court system.  Ongoing strain of litigation then interfaces with psychological issues.  Diagnoses are tricky and dynamic.  Healing techniques and strategies are interrupted by the trauma of the proceedings or behaviors of court personnel.  Stress reduction training is of marginal value for a litigant who will regularly be administered another dose of outrage.  The best of family intervention is defeated if the family court renders a visitation arrangement that destroys continuity in the raising of the children or if the current custodial parent is harassed and stalked, unprotected by the law enforcement system.
Outrage is tough enough.  Beyond rage is terribly painful territory.  I caution the reader that to earnestly use this self-help material for healing purposes will be challenging.  On the other hand, if you choose to stay beyond rage, you exist in a type of living death.  So victims of the systems are caught between a tough place and a really hard place.  Go slowly, get involved in groups, if possible, but don’t let your lifeblood be stripped from you without a fight.  This book will help to get you back on your fighting feet.  You won’t change massive systems or reform your country in all likelihood.  However, when all of the trauma has been processed, you will become an empowered, effective individual again.
More and more, helping professionals are being confronted by “psycholegal” issues.  Patients are driven beyond rage over an extended period of time during which victims travel an isolated road.  The impact of the invisible assaults usually are ignored.
Vigilante violence results when the needs of the majority are not being met by the systems (Tucker).  What of the gentle and decent person who values a law abiding mode of life?  Unless the unique needs of these victims are identified and healing processes made accessible to them, the cost in pain, suffering, disillusionment, and shutdown of creativity to the individual and society is immeasurable.

http://www.legalabusesyndrome.org/synopsisof-legal-abuse-syndrome.php

A poem by a victim of Staffordshire Local Authority Child Abuse

Betrayal of the Innocent
(fucking social workers)
Betrayed by social workers & the state
Left to contemplate my own fate
They thought they knew what was best
Where are they now its time to confess?
They said my parents were failing me
That they could do better I would see
That I needed protection from my self
The state would provide it with all its wealth
So the court sent me into care
Stability would be found once there
But stability was not found
Just state sponsored child abusers
Paid by the state sponsored pound
So forgive me for pointing out your hypocrisy
For you were the ones protecting me
Yet my parents only ever loved me
My parents never ever hurt me
You took me away from a loving home
And with sick perverted abusers
You left me alone
You said there would be no losers
Well my mom died when I was nineteen
I’ve lost forever what might have been
I feel like I don’t know my own dad
I have every reason to feel this sad
You social workers & barristers & judges
You really think you know
You know nothing fucking nothing
How plainly it does show.
Note:
I have no doubt that at some point I will re write this in another way.  As the days months and years go by I get more and more angry that the state and the know it all social workers had the audacity to say my parents were not fit to look after me. For sure they were both simple people who found it hard to cope. But all they ever did was love me the best they knew how.  The so called wise people in court sent me into care of the local authority. I spent time at Chadswell assessment centre in Lichfield, and then went onto Riverside children’s home in Rocester near Uttoxeter. Both places after years of cover ups have had several people jailed for serious child abuse. Charges of rape + sexual assault + assault and all manner of smilar stuff have been proved.  At the time children and that’s what we were were crying out to be heard.  We were so often ignored.  Things were swept under the carpet.  The thing that hurts me the most is that I was deprived of time with my mom who died when I was so young.
The state was taking and making decisions about children’s lives. About our futures & yet they left us at the mercy of perverts I can never ever forgive that. Bastards bastards bastards……………….

Betrayal of the Innocent(fucking social workers) Betrayed by social workers & the stateLeft to contemplate my own fateThey thought they knew what was bestWhere are they now its time to confess? They said my parents were failing meThat they could do better I would seeThat I needed protection from my selfThe state would provide it with all its wealth So the court sent me into careStability would be found once thereBut stability was not foundJust state sponsored child abusersPaid by the state sponsored pound So forgive me for pointing out your hypocrisyFor you were the ones protecting meYet my parents only ever loved meMy parents never ever hurt me You took me away from a loving homeAnd with sick perverted abusersYou left me aloneYou said there would be no losers Well my mom died when I was nineteenI’ve lost forever what might have beenI feel like I don’t know my own dadI have every reason to feel this sad You social workers & barristers & judgesYou really think you knowYou know nothing fucking nothingHow plainly it does show.Note:I have no doubt that at some point I will re write this in another way.  As the days months and years go by I get more and more angry that the state and the know it all social workers had the audacity to say my parents were not fit to look after me. For sure they were both simple people who found it hard to cope. But all they ever did was love me the best they knew how.  The so called wise people in court sent me into care of the local authority. I spent time at Chadswell assessment centre in Lichfield, and then went onto Riverside children’s home in Rocester near Uttoxeter. Both places after years of cover ups have had several people jailed for serious child abuse. Charges of rape + sexual assault + assault and all manner of smilar stuff have been proved.  At the time children and that’s what we were were crying out to be heard.  We were so often ignored.  Things were swept under the carpet.  The thing that hurts me the most is that I was deprived of time with my mom who died when I was so young. The state was taking and making decisions about children’s lives. About our futures & yet they left us at the mercy of perverts I can never ever forgive that. Bastards bastards bastards……………….

http://www.robbowker.co.uk/poemsaa.html

Infant Adoption – What They Knew and Didn’t Tell Us. 1943.


PSYCHOLOGY OF THE ADOPTED CHILD.

Clothier. F. MD. 1943.

Clothier says in her paper in Mental Hygiene (1943). “Every adopted child at some point in his development, has been deprived of this primitive relationship with his mother. This trauma and the severing of the individual from his racial antecedents lie at the core of what is peculiar to the psychology of the adopted child.

The adopted child presents all the complications in social and emotional development in the own child. But the ego of the adopted child, in addition to all the demands made upon it, is called upon to compensate for the wound left by the loss of the biological mother”.

The child who is placed with adoptive parents at or soon after birth misses the mutual and deeply satisfying mother and child relationship. The roots of which lie deep in the area of personality where the psychological and physiological are merged. Both for the child and the natural mother, that period is part of the biological sequence, and it is to be doubted whether the relationship of the child to it’s post partum mother, in its subtler effects, can be replaced by even the best of substitute mothers.

But those subtle effects lie so deeply buried in the personality that, in the light of our present knowledge, we cannot evaluate them.

Clothier says: “We do know more about the trauma that an older baby suffers when he is separated from his mother with whom his relationship is no longer parasitic, but toward whom he has developed active social strivings”.

For some children, and in some stages of development, the severing of a budding social relationship can cause irreparable harm. The childs willingness to sacrifice instinctive gratifications and infantile pleasures for the sake of a love relationship has proved a bitter disillusionment, and he may be reluctant to give himself into a love relationship again.

The child who is placed in infancy has the opportunity of passing through his oedipal development in relation to his adoptive parents without an interruption, that in the childs phantasy, may amount to the most severe of punishments.

Because of the love the baby has come to need to receive from his mother and to give to his mother, he accepts his first responsibility in life, namely toilet training. He gives up infantile sources of pleasure for the sake of his mother, who’s love he wants to hold and whom he wants to please.

The child who lacks the motivation of a growing social and emotional relationship with a highly valued love object, does not accept training in a spirit of co-operation. If he accepts it at all, it is likely to be in response to fear of the consequences of wetting and soiling. Many children use persistent wetting and soiling as a method of expressing their antagonism to a mother with whom they have not experienced an early, satisfying love relationship.

Brisley. (1939) points out that the illegitimate baby (and this applies to the prospective candidate for adoption) is under abnormal pressure to “be good”. This implies first being quiet and taking feeds well, and later, accepting toilet training at an early age. This emphasis Brisley suggests is a “contributing factor to the insecurity and feeling of aloneness which seems characteristic of the illegitimate child.”

Clothier goes on to say, “that every child, whether living with his parents or with foster parents, has a recourse to phantasy when he finds himself frustrated, threatened or incapable of dominating his environment. For the adopted child it is not a phantasy that these parents with whom he lives with are not his parents, it is reality.

For the adopted child, the second set of parents are obviously the unknown lost real parents. His normal ambivalence will make use of this reality situation to focus his love impulses on one set of parents and his hate impulses on another. He finds an easy escape from the frustrations inherent in his home education by assuming the attitude that these, his adoptive parents, are his bad and wicked persecutors, whereas his dimly remembered own or foster parents, from whom he was ‘stolen’ are represented in his phantasy as the good parents to whom he owes his love and allegiance”.

1960

FANTASIES AND BEHAVIOUR OF THE ADOPTED CHILD;

Marshall D.Schechter. M.D., Beverly Hills California.

In his paper on the Observations of Adopted Children.

In a series of cases seen by him the percentage of adopted children was 13.3 as compared with the national average of 0.134. This indicates a hundredfold increase of patients in this category compared with what could be expected in the general population.

Toussieng (April 1958) of the out patients and admissions service said that one third of all patients coming to the Menninger out patient clinic were adopted.

Schechter, goes on to say. The striking thing in most cases was that the feature of their adoptive status played a significant role in the underlying dynamics of the problem.

He observed in many of his case studies on adopted children symptoms relating to such things as fantasies and “acting out” regarding the real parents, i.e. their appearance, their names and killing and murder especially toward their real mother.

Observations also included outbursts toward the adoptive parents telling them they would not do as the parents say because they were not their real parents. He also goes on to say that adopted children suffer symptoms of depression, feelings of incompleteness, phobic fear of abandonment, anxiety, aloofness and distancing of them selves which made close relationships impossible.

Schechter also noted hyperactivity and unmanageability in children of a young age. He also observed,
particularly with one child, that it had relationships of the same quality with strangers as his parents, namely, superficial and dominated by a driving need to have his impulses satisfied immediately. The child could easily be comforted by a stranger as easily as by his mother.

In the behaviour of young adopted girls Schechter observed instances of such things as sex-play, exhibitionism, seductiveness and regression.

He also noted in cases of adopted boys, problems of lying, stealing, and lack of integration with others.

Schechter’s observations of the adoptive parents were that often the adoptive mothers had intense feelings of inadequacy regarding their womanly functions that contributed to an over protectiveness to the children. These feelings also served as a constant reminder of her barrenness, stimulating her need to tell the story of “the chosen one”.

Prior to adoption, some of these people had recognized emotional problems within themselves. Some had thought of the children as potential saviours of their marriage. Some felt that a child was essential to prove their masculinity.

Toussieng. (1958) commenting on the repetition of the story of adoption and of how “we picked you” suggests that the real parents did not want him and therefore were bad parents. Therefore, though the parents stress the wanting aspect they at the same time play the “abandonment theme”.

The belief of “I’m no good: because my parents gave me away because I was no good and I am going to prove them right” is not uncommon in adoptive children.

In his comments Schechter reports we could see how the idea of adoption had woven itself into the framework of the childs personality configuration. It played a role in symptom formation and object relationships. It certainly had an effect in later development, giving the stamp of antisocial behaviour and that of a paranoidal system.

He summarises by stating ” The patients in this paper do not have a fantasy about being adopted, they were adopted. Their daydream, which cannot be combated by denial, is the connection with their real parents. Who were they? What were they? Why did they give me up? Do I have any living relatives? What was my name, etc?

Clothier. (April;1943) states. A deep identification with our fore-bears as experienced originally in the mother-child relationship, gives us our most fundamental security. . . Every adopted child at some point in his development has been deprived of his primitive relationship with his mother. This trauma and the removal of the individual from his racial antecedent lie at the core of what is peculiar to the psychology of the adopted child.

Toussieng (1958) states; the adolescence of the adopted child seems to be a particularly difficult one because it is harder for adoptive adolescents to accept their rebellion against the adoptive parents, to give them up as love objects. Furthermore, I have now seen a number of cases in which children in adolescence start roaming around almost aimlessly, though some times they are seeking someone or some thing. They seem to be seeking the fantasised “good real parents”.

Benedek (1938) presents an important concept regarding the development of confidence based on
mother-child relationship. This is the area so sensitive in these adopted children and which can be found to under-lie so many of their disturbances.

1962

DISABILITIES IN ADOPTED CHILDREN AND ADOPTIVE PARENTS

Dr. Povl W. Toussieng. M.D.

Dr Toussieng was a child psychiatrist at The Menninger Clinic Topeka, Kansas.

Dr Toussieng suggests that adopted children seem more prone to emotional disturbances than non-adopted children; he concludes that their conflicts are caused by their adoptive parents unresolved resistance to parenthood.

He says that in spite of careful screening of adopted children and their prospective parents prior to adoption, a disproportionately large percentage of these children eventually come to psychiatric or other professional attention because of emotional, educational or social problems.

The fact that sixty one percent of the first and only child in an adopting family were particularly prone to disturbances suggested that they should look elsewhere than in the children themselves for the factors contributing to later disturbances. The children presented at the Childrens Service tended to present many severe difficulties.

Toussieng also acknowledges that severe emotional disturbances and personality disorders are
over-represented among adopted children and that they may have severe emotional difficulties that may never come to the attention of professionals.

He points out that on reaching adulthood some children become obsessed with finding their real mother because they had revealed a feeling of never having been really attached to their adoptive family and never had the feeling of real belonging.

Toussieng refers to Deutsh (1945) where she discusses the influences of unconscious attitudes and conflicts on the abilities of the adoptive mother to be motherly toward their adopted children. She believes that an adoptive mothers failure to develop motherliness is the major cause of later disturbances in the child. They (the mothers) view the adopted child as narcissistic injury, as evidence that they themselves are damaged. The child in trying to identify with such parents may well acquire shaky and defective introjects.

Toussieng summarises by stating “children who have been adopted at an early age and/or who have not been exposed to psychological traumatization before adoption seem to be more prone to emotional disturbances than non-adopted children.

1963

ADOPTED CHILDREN DISABILITIES.

Michael Humphrey and Christopher Ounsted.

Michael Humphrey, M.A. B.Sc Principal Clinical Psychologist. Warneford and Park Hospitals.

Christopher Ounsted. D.M.,D.C.H., D.P.M., Consultant-in Charge Park Hospital for Children.

In a control group of 41 early age adoptees they distinguished the following symptoms. Emotional reactions (tantrums, negativism, jealousy). Enuresis, anxiety, disturbed social behaviour, aggression, withdrawl, stealing, cruelty, destructiveness, lying and encopresis.

They were impressed with finding out that one in two children adopted late had been stealing as compared to one in four children adopted at an early age. The action appeared in several cases to be expressly directed at the adoptive mother, either from a sense of rejection (in some cases well founded) or as an appeal for more individual attention. Sometimes the money would be spent on presents for friends in the hope of gaining popularity. Some of these children have stolen compulsively over a long period with no sign of remorse.

They found the adopted children suffered from varying degrees of parental deprivation, neglect, parental rejection or at the opposite extreme, over-indulgence, mental or physical illness sufficient to impair the quality of parental love, and jealously of a sibling born before or too soon after the adoption.

1963.

FANTASY OF ADOPTED CHILDREN AND ADOPTIVE PARENTS.

Schechter.M. Carlson.P.V. Simmons. J.Q. and Work. H.H.

In a paper submitted to the Childrens Bureau, US Department of Health Aug 1963.

The factor of adoption played a consistently important role in the genesis and perpetuation of the given
symptom picture. Two major hypotheses were suggested for the higher incidence of psychological disturbances in the adoptee. Firstly the adoptee may intra-physically continue a split between good and bad in his infantile object relations, since in reality he has two sets of parents. Secondly, the adoptive parent is often confused in his or her role due to unconscious guilts and hostilities and tends to project this disturbance backward into the heredity of the child i.e. the natural parents.

Phipps(1953) mentioned the tendency of parents to speak about the heredity of the child as the major causative factor in behavioural difficulties.

Lemon E.M. (1959) referred to the difficulty that the adopted individual has in dealing with communication concerning his adopted status with a resulting tendency to weave factual material together with much fantasied material in his thoughts as he seeks his natural parents.

They went on to say that these patients perceived their adoptive parents as inadequate especially with the setting of limits and viewed their natural parents as their adequate set of parents.

Livermore J. B (1961) suggests that the adoptees have specific problems in identification, since the adoptive mother constantly reactivates primitive unconscious fears that her own insides have been destroyed.

They summarised by saying. “We feel that we have offered substantial evidence from many sources that the non-relative adopted child may be more prone to emotional difficulties”.

1967.

ADOPTED CHILDREN.

A statement from the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 1967.37 402. Mid-Fairfield Child Guidance Centre Norwalk Connecticut.

The number of adopted adolescent children who are referred to our centre and other centres is larger than their ratio in the general population. “We are impressed with the extent to which these children are pre-occupied with the theme of their adoption”.

They go on to talk about the similarity of the traits and attitudes in these children which they refer to as the “Adoption Syndrome”.

1970.

DISABILITIES OF ADOPTED CHILDREN.

Dr Christopher Ounsted, MA, DM, MRCP, DCH, DPM.

Dr Ounsted states that in the late fifties it had become apparent to him and his colleagues at the Park Street Hospital for Children that they were seeing an unexpectedly large number of adopted children. Many of the children owed their disabilities either to some inate handicap or to defects in the structure of their families, such as having parents who were psychotic, inadequate, psychopathic, defective, or in some other way not able to fulfil their parental roles adequately.

Ounsted noted that of the symptoms of adopted patients, compulsive theft was more significant.

1971.

ABUSE.

Henry Kemp. Archives of Diseases in Childhood (1971) states that some children may be more vulnerable to abuse than others. Among them are the hyperactive, the precocious, the premature, the stepchild and the adopted.

1974.

IDENTITY:

1974 Dr Triseliotis in his research paper on Identity and Adoption, gives examples of adoptees views on identity.

1st adoptee,
“I look in the mirror and cannot recognise myself”.

2nd adoptee,
“I feel there is something about adoption that gives you a feeling of insecurity as regards just
exactly who you are”.

3rd adoptee,
“I feel that I am only a half a person, the other half obscured by my adoption”.

4th adoptee,
“I never really felt I belonged. I feel empty and I find it difficult to make friends or be close to
people. I have been hovering on the edge of a break down”.

One of the main anxieties of adoptees is the fear of being different and somewhat set apart from the rest.

The adopted child has to gradually accept the loss of his natural parents and the “rejection” this implies. Yet he has to also accomodate a preferably positive image of the original set of parents and their genealogy in his developing self.

Children who are adopted into a different culture will still need to identify with aspects of their original heritage.

1975.

ABANDONMENT.

Bennett Olshaker, MD. In his paper “What shall We Tell the Kids”, he notes that the adopted person has to contend with the feeling that he was abandoned, but we can try to help him in a positive manner by portraying his natural parents in a positive manner. He goes on to say that some adoptive parents may feel that their childs’ parents were immoral for having a child out of wedlock. These sentiments create difficulties for the parents when the child has questions regarding sexual matters.

1976.

ADOPTED CHILDREN ADMITTED INTO RESIDENTIAL PSYCHIATRIC CARE.

Harper.J.; Williams. S. 1976.

This was an investigation over a period of five years from 1969-1974 into 22 adopted children admitted into the childrens unit at North Ryde Psychiatric Centre. Six were referred at age eleven and over, three were referred before their fifth birthday and the remaining thirteen fell between five and ten years and eleven months.

Symptoms in the children ranged from depression, aggressive acting out behaviour to stealing. In some
instances stealing was a desperate attempt to buy friendship since the stolen money was to buy sweets and toys for peers. In other instances it seemed to compensate for the loss of the real mother by acquisition of material goods. In all cases it could be seen as a cry for help.

In some instances admission to the unit signals the relinquishing of parental responsibility as evidenced by eight cases where the child was made a ward of the state and placed in a child welfare home. A summary of the various outcomes indicated that they on the whole were unsatisfactory with one third settling back into their adoptive families with a positive prognosis and two thirds demonstrating a breakdown or possible breakdown in the adoptions.

Family trauma and parental pathology was investigated since it was felt that the stress of adoption could not alone account for the severity of symptoms and outcomes in the children. In terms of family trauma one mother and one father suicided after a history of depressive illness, one set of adoptive parents were murdered, two fathers were killed in car accidents with the adoptive child present and three fathers were unusually violent and aggressive men.

In seven cases, the mothers had a history of psychiatric illness prior to the adoption, including one with a schizophrenic illness. In the case of the seven mothers and three fathers for whom a psychiatric diagnosis was made after the adoption, one can only speculate on the degree to which extra-familial stresses and internal pressures contributed toward this decompensation.

1980.

ADOPTED ADOLESCENTS.

Rickarby. G.A. Eagan. P. 1980.

Rickarby and Eagan say that in their and others studies, there has been consistent evidence of morbidity of various types in adopted adolescents. He states that adoptive families are four times more as likely as biological to seek help for their distress. Acting out, degrees of depression, identity crisis and special roles, (the bad one, the mad one, or the sick one) may constitute an adolescent’s expression of a families dysfunction.

With the added issues of adoption, adolescent development crises become more difficult and the concomitant distress and behaviour exaggerated. These situations include the adolescent who is unable to communicate to others his frightening or idealized fantasies about his biological parents and who cannot readily accept the identity expected of him in his adoptive family and the adopted adolescent who is struggling to cope in a family beset by marital conflict or mental illness.

Cultural fables may have a destructive aspect on the adopted adolescents development. One such fable is “the chosen child”. This is often a source of great anger to the child whose experience of his family has not been “good enough”. His anger is directed at the adoptive parents because these people “chose him”.

Another fable is that of “the poor child whose parents did not want him” and who was adopted by the bountiful parents to whom the child should be ever more grateful.

1985.

ADOPTIVE ANXIETY, RAGE AND GUILT.

Silverman. M.A. 1985. Discusses in his paper that when adoptive status is foisted upon a child, the child is encumbered with so many problems that he or she is at risk of developing a host of psychological problems. This is particularly so if the child learns of his adoption at an early age.

These can be unhappiness, separation problems, difficulty knowing and learning, aggressive fantasies and acts, preoccupation with knives and other weapons, and his feelings of being deprived and robbed.

Adoptive status tends to affect multiple aspects of the developing personality. It interferes with the childs sense of security, the modulation of and channelling of the childs aggression, the development and resolution of the Oedipus complex, super-ego formation, and identity formation.

To lose a parent early in life, especially when there is a felt element of cruel rejection and desertion, as there tends to be when a child is told of adoption while still in the throes of “sadistic-anal” ambivalence and the hostile-dependent struggles of the reproachment crisis of separation-individuation, mobilizes in tense fear and rage. The rage at the abandoning parents is in part directed toward the adoptive parents.

In part the rage is turned back on the self, contributing to the fantasy that the child was abandoned by the original parents because he or she was bad, troublesome, greedy, and destructive.

Silverman goes on to say “nearly every adopted child or adult I have treated sooner or later has revealed the fantasy that the reason for the adoption was the biological mother died in childbirth, which tends to be depicted as a tearing, ripping, bloody, murderous affair in which the baby gains life by taking the life of the mother”.

The adopted child not only needs to learn about pregnancy and childbirth to solve the mysteries of his or her origins, but also needs to find out if he or she is really a murderer! Adopted children often entertain the fantasy that the original father too has died.

1986.

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER IN ADOPTEES.

Wilson. : Green. : Soth. : 1986. Report that many adopted adolescent patients in their hospital (10 out of 21) have received a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. This diagnosis, made official in the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edition 1980), includes the following symptoms: impulsivity or unpredictability in areas that are potentially self damaging, a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships with idealization, devaluation and manipulation, inappropriate intense anger.

Identity disturbance was manifested by uncertainty about several issues relating to identity, intolerence of being alone, affective instability, physically self damaging acts, and chronic feelings of boredom and emptyness. It is theorised that this disorder arose because of deficits in early parenting experiences which did not enable the child to develop a core identity, so they didnt feel part of a fused dyad, which explains their fear of abandonment and intolerence of being alone.

1988.

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN ADOPTEES. ADOPTED CHILD SYNDROME.

Kirshner.D. Nagel.L. 1988.

Is there a distinct pattern of presenting behaviours and symptoms among adopted children and adolescents referred for psychotherapy? Some clinicians and clinical researchers whose day to day observations strongly suggest that such a pattern does, in fact exist. The senior author has observed extreme provocative, aggressive, antisocial, and delinquent conduct much more consistently among adoptees than their non-adopted counterparts.

Behind the recurrent behavioural and personality patterns there have emerged emotional and psychodynamic issues specifically linked to adoption.

Schecter, Carlson, Simmons, & Work (1964) looked at adopted and non-adopted children in a psychiatric setting and found a much greater occurrence of overt destructive acts and sexual acting-out among adoptees. Menlove (1965) used a similar sample and found significantly more aggressive symptomatology among adoptees. Although several predicted differences were significant, adoptees had significantly more hyperactivity, hostility, and negativism, and significantly more of them had passive-aggressive personalities.

What then is the adopted child syndrome? On the behaviourial level, it it is an antisocial pattern that usually includes pathological lying, stealing, and manipulativeness. Fire setting is sometimes seen and promiscuous behaviour is common.

Typically, the child seeks out delinquent, antisocial children or adults often of a lower economic class than the adoptive family. Provocative, disruptive behaviour is directed toward authority figures, notably teachers and parents. The child often threatens to run away, and in many cases repeatedly does so.

Truancy is common, as well as academic under-achievement and, in many cases there are significant learning problems. There is a typically shallow quality to the attachment formed by the child, and a general lack of meaningful relationships. The child reports feeling “different” and “empty”.

Yet the parents of most children with the Adopted Child Syndrome exhibit a pattern of tension and denial surrounding the issue of adoption. It soon becomes apparent however, that communication about adoption is not simply absent; much worse, the parents are tacitly communicating a message that the topic is dangerous and taboo.

The child, sensing his parents’ insecurity and anxiety, is left to imagine what terrible truths they might be hiding. He feels an ominous pressure against voicing his feelings and curiosity. He senses that his adoptive parents would feel his interest in his birth parents was disloyal. He not only experiences a dread of the truth but also the stifling of his normal curiosity.

1988.

IDENTITY IN ADOPTEES.

Treadwell Penny, talks about Dr F.H. Stone, former consultant in child psychiatry at the Royal Hospital for sick children in Glasgow. Writing about the problems of identity experienced in adolescence by adopted children,
Stone says:

“When there are emotional problems, really basic problems connected with identification, something is likely to happen. Instead of the young person playing roles, he may very actively take on a particular favoured role, which he proceeds to live, and this role tends often to be the least in favour with the parents or other adults who care for this young person.

And so we see again and again in our clinics the parents of teenagers who come to us in utter
despair and say `Not only are we worried about the child, but the very things we have always been most afraid of: thats what he is doing’. If it was drugs then it was drugs; if it was promiscuity it was promiscuity; if it was failure to learn then it was failure to learn”.

Psychologist Erick Erickson. . . calls this a “negative identity”. One can readily appreciate the relevance of this to the adoptive situation, because here we see the danger, in the confusion or embarrassment of explaining to the child about the natural mother or father, of denigrating them either as people who abandoned him, who did not care for him, or who had certain attributes of personality or behaviour. The danger here is that this will backlash, and later on, especially in adolescence, this is precisely the mode of behaviour which the child adopts in his “negative identity”.

1988.

WHY DO ADOPTEES SEARCH?

Robert.S. Andersen asks; “What then about the question as to why the adoptees are searching? This question can be paraphrased thus: “Why are you interested in your mother, your father, your sisters, brothers, grandparents, cousins, nieces, nephews, ancestry, history, aptitudes, liabilities – in short why are you interested in you?”

This is the tragedy, that adoptees more often than not do not feel justified in living life as it is, but have to come out with socially acceptable excuses to justify their interest, needs, and their lives.

They cannot be honest with themselves or others because the conflictual forces, external if in the form of “how could you do this to your adoptive parents”, or internal if in the form of “she gave me up and I do not want to give her the satisfaction of knowing that it matters”, interfere with the living of life from their own original position.

Searching, is not simply an intellectual activity for the adoptee. There is an emotional component as well, and it is my belief that this emotional component is the most important part. If one genuinely wonders why adoptees search, I think that a comprehensive answer must include the following: On one level, adoptees search so they might see, touch, and talk to their biological mother – the search is an effort to make contact with one’s biological family. On a different level (the bottom line), it is something more than this. I think that the search is most fundamentally, an expression of the wish to undo the trauma of separation.

Adoptees either hope (unrealistically, but not necessarily unexpectantly) to relive the life that was lost at the time of the separation, or hope (more realistically) to heal the wound caused by the separation, and therefore provide a more solid base for their lives.

1991.

SEVEN CORE ISSUES OF ADOPTION.

Kaplan.S.; Silverstein. D.:

1.Loss: Adoption is created through loss. Without loss there can be no adoption.

2.Rejection: One way people deal with loss is to figure out what they did was wrong so they can keep from having other losses. In doing this, people may conclude they suffered losses because they were unworthy of having whatever was lost. As a result they feel they were rejected.

3.Guilt and shame: When people personalize a loss to the extent that they feel there is something
intrinsically wrong with themselves that caused the loss, they often feel guilt that they did something wrong or feel shame that others may know. (Silverstein).

4.Grief: Because adoption is seen as a problem solving event in which everyone gains, rather than an event in which loss is integral, it is difficult for adoptees, adoptive parents, and birthparents to grieve. There are no rituals to bury unborn children, roles, dead dreams and disconnected families.

5.Identity: A person’s identity is derived from who he is and what he is not. Adoption threatens a persons knowing of who he is, where he came from, and where he is going.

6.Intimacy: People who are confused about their identity have difficulty getting close to anyone, Kaplan says. And people who have had significant loss in their lives may fear getting close to others because of the risk of experiencing loss again.

7.Control: All those involved with adoption have been “forced to give up control” said Silverstein. Adoption is a second choice. There is a crisis who’s resolution is adoption.

1991.

THE BABY.

Unlike the adoptive mother the baby has experienced pregnancy. The child-in-the-womb has built up a a rhythmical biological bond with the woman who will not be his mother. Prenatal psychologists believe the adopted baby has to learn to separate from the mother he has known in-utro and form an attachment to the new set of parents. Some adoptive parents believe this too.

They feel that the newborn baby has already had intimate prenatal and birth experiences and possible
memories from which they are excluded. These parents interpret the babies cries or discomfort as pining for the birthmother’s smell, her touch, the sound of her voice or naturally synchronized rhythmicity. Such hypersensitivity and fear of rejection by the the baby may reflect the adopting parents own unconfessed preferences for a “natural child” of their own.

Arrival of an adopted baby revives the sense of having “stolen” a child they were not entitled to have. In addition, fantasies about the babies unknown conceptual and genetic history contribute to difficulties in falling in love with the little stranger who is to be part of their lives.

1991.

THE PRIMAL WOUND.

Verrier Nancy, 1991, believes that during gestation a mother becomes uniquely sensitised to her baby. Donald Winnicot called this phenomenon, primary maternal preoccupation. He believed that toward the end of pregnancy, the mother develops a state of heightened sensitivity, which provides a setting for the infants constitution to begin to make itself evident, for the developmental tendencies to start to unfold and for the infant to experience spontaneous movement.

He stressed the mother alone knows what the baby could be feeling and what he needs, because everyone else is outside his experience.

The mothers hormonal, physiological, constitutional and emotional preparation provides the child with a security, which no one else can. There is a natural flow from the in-utro experience of the baby safely confined in the womb to that of the baby secure within the mothers arms, to the wanderings of the toddler who is secure in the mothers proximity to her. This security provides the child with a sense of rightness and wholeness of self.

For these babies and their mother, relinquishment and adoption are not concepts, they are experiences they can never fully recover from. A child can certainly attach to another care giver, but rather than a secure, serene feeling of oneness, the attachment is one in which the adoptive relationship may be what Bowlby has referred to as anxious attachment.

He noted that “provided there is one particular mother figure to who he can relate and who mothers him lovingly, he will in time take to and treat her as though she were almost his mother. That “almost” is the feeling expressed by the adoptive mothers who feel as if they had accepted the infant but the infant had not quite accepted them as mother.

More Adoption ArticlesAdoption Crossroads HomePage

http://www.adoptioncrossroads.org/what_they_knew_&_didn’t_tell_us.html

CONTACT BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN LONG-TERM CARE: THE UNRESOLVED DISPUTE JUDITH MASSON*

CONTACT BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN LONG-TERM CARE: THE UNRESOLVED DISPUTE

JUDITH MASSON*

* Lecturer in Law, University of Leicester, Leicester LEI 7RH, England.

This article describes the development of the law and social work practice relating to access to children in care in England and Wales and examines the different approaches to such access by looking at the attitudes of social workers, guardians ad litem and the judiciary. The particular focus is contact betweenchildren who are unlikely to return to the natural family and their parents. Using Fox’s analysis of ideologies in child care the author concludes that ‘the-society-as-parent protagonists’ do not value contact where rehabilitation is unlikely and that such views were partly reflected in the Department of Health and Social Security’s Code of Practice on Access. The author then examines the research literature on success of fostering and well-being of children in care and concludes that there is little evidence to support a negative approach to access. Indeed, the most recent studies stress the poor consequences of failing to maintain contact between children in care and their families. The Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 gave parents who have had their access to children in care terminated a right to have this decision reviewed by a magistrates’ court. The court normally appoints a guardian ad litem who will investigate the case and make a recommendation to the court. In a small study of guardians, the author found that approximately half took the narrow approach to access and would not support it where there was no chance of rehabilitation. A study of reported access cases indicates that judges also took the narrow approach to access to children in care but not in cases following relationship breakdown. The author explains that this reflects the judge’s own interpretation of adoption law and also their support of local authority action. The author concludes that the changes introduced by the Children Act 1989 will make only a slight difference, for two reasons. First, there is still little belief that continuing contact is in the child’s best interests. Second, the security which children who cannot be rehabilitated are thought to need can only be provided by adoption, which under English Law almost always requires the severance of links with the natural family.

 http://lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/97

How To Kidnap A Child by The Barbaric Association of Social Workers

Congratulations! You have embarked on a great adventure. Kidnapping a child is probably unlike anything you have done before. If you are a first-time kidnapper you may be hesitant; perhaps you have lingering scruples. It is true you will probably do irreparable harm to the child. Children in care more often become involved in drugs, alcohol, and crime, become pregnant as teenagers, perform poorly in school, join gangs, and commit suicide.
But look at the advantages! You can be sure of reaching your targets and making lots of money. YOU call the shots! What could be more rewarding? And a little extra cash each month never hurts, eh?
Few people realize how easy abduction is. It happens 1,000 times a day, mostly by social workers! So if you’re thinking, “I could never get away with it,” wake up! Millions do. In fact many only realize the possibility when they become victims. Then they invariably say, “If only I had known how easy it is I would have done it sooner!” So don’t be caught off guard. Read on, and discover the exciting world of child kidnapping and extortion.
If you are a social worker the best time to snatch is soon after your victims have a new child or pregnancy. Once you have what you want, you will realize that the parents are no longer necessary .
A social worker should consider snatching as soon as they can. Once you have the child, you have pretty much won the game. You will always be at an advantage, who will believe the parents in a family court ?. . But hey, you have the kid. you wont be held accountable, and the family courts will protect you 100 %.
Surprise is crucial for an elegant abduction. Wait until the other parent is away, has just that minute given birth. Don’t worry about the child’s effects, there is funding for them.  The more you children you snatch , the better  your targets and cash flow. You also want to achieve the maximum emotional devastation the parents. Like the terrorist, you want to impress with how swift, sudden, and unpredictable your strike can be.
kidnapping the child without a court order  is illegal, but the police will turn a blind eye. The police will make the case a low priority, and if you are a social worker you will never be prosecuted. In the meantime claim to have established a “stable routine” and that returning the child (or even visits) would be “disruptive.” Anything that keeps the child in your possession and away from their parents works to your advantage.
Find superficial ways to appear cooperative. Inform the parents of your decisions (after you have made them). At the same time avoid real cooperation. The judge will conclude that the parents “wont co-operate” and leave you in charge. Since it is standard piety that parents should  “cooperate,” the easiest way to sabotage them reclaiming the child is to be as uncooperative as possible.
Go to court right away. The more aggressive you are with litigation the more it will appear you have some valid grievance. The judge and lawyers  will be grateful for the business you create. Despite professions of heavy caseloads, courts are under pressure to channel money to lawyers, whose bar associations appoint and promote judges. File a motion for forced adoption, and get a restraining order to keep the parents  from seeing their children. (A nice touch is to say they are planning to “kidnap” them or cause them emotional harm.) Or have them restricted to supervised visitation.
Going to court is also a great opportunity to curtail anything you dislike about the parents. If you think they may go to the press, get an injunction against them discussing it. Do they complain or report you ? Getting a court order is easier than you think.
False allegations of physical. sexual and emotional harm  are also helpful. Accusing a parent of  abusing their own children is very easy and can be satisfying for its own sake.
Don’t worry about proving the charges. An experienced judge will recognize trumped-up allegations. This is not important, since no one will ever blame the judge for being “better safe than sorry,” and accusations create business for his cronies. You yourself will never have to answer for false charges. The investigation also buys time during which you can further claim to be establishing a routine while keeping the parents at a distance and programming the children against them.
Abuse accusations are also marvelously self-fulfilling. What more logical way to provoke a parent to lash out than to take away their children? Parents naturally become violent when someone interferes with their children. This is what parents are for. The more you can torment them with the ruin of their family, home, livelihood, savings, and sanity, the more likely that they will self-destruct, thus demonstrating their unfitness.
Get the children themselves involved. Children are easily convinced they have been abused. Once the suggestion is planted, any affection from their parents will elicit a negative reaction, making your suggestion self-fulfilling in the child’s mind.
Dripping poison into the hearts of their children can be gratifying, and it is a joy to watch the darlings absorb your hostility. Young children can be filled with venom fairly easily just by telling them how bad their parents are as frequently as possible.
Older children present more of a challenge. They may have fond memories of the love and fun they once experienced with them. These need to be expunged or at least tainted. Try little tricks like saying, “Today you will be seeing your parents, but don’t worry, it won’t last long.” Worry aloud about the  parent’s competence to care for the child or what unpleasant or dangerous experience may be in store during the child’s visit. Sign the child up for organized activities that conflict with the parents visits. Or promise fun things, like a trip to Disneyland, which then must be “cancelled” to visit their parents.
You will soon discover how neatly your techniques reinforce one another. For example, marginalizing the parents and alienating the child become perfect complements merely by suggesting that the parents are absent because they  do not love them. What could be more logical in their sweet little minds!
And what works with children is also effective with judges. The more you can make the children hate their parents the easier you make it to get the forced adoption or the care order.
Remember too, this guide is no substitute for a good lawyer, since nothing is more satisfying than watching a hired goon beat up the child’s parents in a courtroom.
And now you can do what you like! You can warehouse the kids to paedophiles (or whatever).

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

Public Law Care Requests

Staffordshire Local Authority Staff With Mental Health AND Alcohol issues


Psychiatrists Make New Findings For DSM

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 8:39 am
Tags: , , , ,
NEW BATCH OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS DISCOVERED
A doctor who was commissioned by the family courts to do research on personality disorders has revealed there are many more than first thought.
Dr Pindick was paid £ 1000567987 by a family judge to assess thousands of parents whos children had been removed by social services.
He discovered that the new personality disorders include
loath and despise syndrome ….. a parents hatred of social workers
your all corrupt lying bastards syndrome….. a parents hatred of family courts.
stick your order up your arse syndrome……. parents refusing to be gagged.
He also discovered a new strain of tourettes after observing many parents using launguage such as ” fuck ss, fuck cafcass ,all lying bastards,twats, wankers “
He proclaimed these to be wildy abnormal and sectioned all parents to a mental institution on remote island in the hebrides.
Our reporter visited the hospital and witnessed thousands of parents wearing a straightgag which is a new defice fitted around the mouth to prevent them saying obscenities.

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

Child Contact

DIRECT CONTACT means meetings between the child/young person and birth family members and/or significant others, and includes phone calls, texting and emails.
INDIRECT CONTACT mean letters and cards from members of the birth family and /or significant others, usually through a third person.
•Contact is a key issue for children and they often have ambivalent feelings, both wanting it but feeling distressed at the same time. They often desire more contact with fathers and other family members, such as grandmothers and siblings, as well as with mothers, even if they are happy in their placement and do not want to return home.
•Parents also have these ambivalent feelings. Many desperately miss their children, want to have contact and find the experience distressing.
•The amount of contact between looked-after children and their birth families is increasing.
•Developments such as increased placement stability, open communication and improved relationships are often the result of additional interventions, not just contact between birth families and their children alone. However, contact may achieve specific and perhaps more limited and realistic goals, such as reassuring children about what is happening at home.
•Current practice assumes a strong principle, supported by legislation, that contact is generally beneficial and should be promoted, unless it is not in the child’s best interests. Decisions need to be made on the different aspects of contact, for example contact with family members. Contact must always be ‘fine tuned’, assessing and taking into account any risks.
•If the child has been abused, contact can allow abuse to continue if there is unsupervised direct contact or ineffective scrutiny of letters and cards.
•Foster carers are generally positive about contact but some report problems associated with it. In some cases these are serious.
Practice points
•Ask yourself if you have explored all opportunities for contact, either direct or indirect. Remember that children in foster care have a legal right to contact with their birth family and most children want to keep in contact, although they find it distressing at times. Also, remember that contact often helps children’s feelings of identity: being valued, respected and appreciated.
•Ask yourself if you have ‘fine tuned’ contact and consulted with the child about all the different aspects of contact, for example, with different family members. Remember not to treat it as a ‘blanket’ event and ask yourself if you have considered all the alternatives to direct contact when this is not possible.
•Remember to ask children about the contact they want to have with their brothers and sisters and other relatives, for example grandparents. You can also consider previous carers. Try and make contact arrangements because this can be very important to them.
•Remember that children who have been abused by their family members should be protected from risks posed by contact and that their rights to contact can be overruled in the need to keep them safe. Ask yourself if you and their carers have talked with them about how safe they feel and remember to look out for non-verbal signs that may indicate that the child does not feel safe.
•Remember that children who have been abused should not have unsupervised contact with family members who are involved in, or associated with the abuse. Ask yourself if you should scrutinise letters and cards. There must be a formal decision about every risk.
•Remember that most parents also want to have contact, although they may find it distressing, so make sure you talk with parents about how contact could be made less stressful.
•Research shows that contact by itself does not result in improved outcomes, for example, settled placements and reunification and you should consider additional interventions to achieve these goals.
•Think about the aims of contact between children and their families and whether they are being achieved. The value of contact may be as much to do with reducing distress, helping to keep in touch and to feel valued and respected, as with achieving other outcomes. What can you do to support parents with managing contact?
•Foster carers’ needs are also important when making arrangements, so things needs to be discussed in advance to tackle any problems.
What we know from research
Types of contact
Contact can be through meetings, phone calls or letters with specific members of the family. Meetings can be unsupervised or supervised by social workers, foster carers, other professionals and sometimes other family members or friends.
Contact can take place in a variety of venues. Meetings can take place at different dates and times, regularly or every now and then. However, making arrangements that please everybody and are in the best interests of the child can sometimes be complex and difficult.
Children’s opinions on contact
Contact is a key issue for children. They often spend a lot of time thinking about their relationship with their family and are often distressed by the thought of contact. Many children think about their families every day (2). When children in another study were asked to think of their two most important wishes for their future, a quarter prioritised seeing more of, or being reunited with, their birth family (3).
Children often want more contact with fathers and other family members, such as grandmothers and siblings, as well as mothers, even if they are happy in their placement and do not want to return home. Some want contact with particular family members, and not with others (17), while other children prefer indirect to direct contact.
Decisions need to be made around the different aspects of contact. You will need to consider the child’s wishes and feelings on the variety of contact options, such as indirect and direct contact as well as contact with different family members. Contact must always be ‘fine tuned’, assessing and taking into account any risks. (17)
Many looked-after children – 40 – 50 per cent – have contact with a family member at least weekly and only a minority, between one in six or seven children, do not have any contact with a member of their birth family (3).
Birth parent views on contact
Parents often have mixed feelings about having their children in care and this can affect the way they feel about contact arrangements. Feelings can range from relief to shame, and concern that they have ‘failed’, or can be mixture of all of these. Most parents desperately miss their child, want to have contact, and may often find the experience very distressing (2).
Parents often have difficulty in asking for help when their child returns home because of the associated stigma and the possible risk of losing their child again. When their child is accommodated at their request or as result of the child’s difficult behaviour they often welcome it, but they often resent compulsory intervention (3).
Contact and re-abuse
Direct, and even sometimes indirect, contact can allow abuse to continue. One study found that in situations where the child had been abused, and there was unsupervised contact with all family members, placement breakdown was three times more likely to occur, as well as re-abuse (17).
The relationship between contact and improved outcomes
Research (3) argues that contact between birth families and children does not, on its own, facilitate reunification or improve relationships. Additional interventions are also needed. Contact can, however, achieve specific and perhaps more limited and realistic goals, such as reassuring children about what is happening at home.
Other research knowledge (2) on the relationship between outcomes and contact is summarised by a series of linked reviews of studies about contact in fostering and adoption, mainly in the UK (50-53). When researchers reviewed the studies they did not find a clear relationship between contact and improved outcomes in areas such as placement stability and improvements in the child’s mental health. They did not always find that different factors had been considered in the research and queried whether imprecise definitions of contact and weak measures of outcomes had been used. They noted a failure to effectively consider the quality, purpose and setting of the contact and to use small self-selected samples.
Whilst a certain level of contact is needed if reunification is to be achieved, it is now uncertain whether contact as a factor by itself results in the improved outcomes previously thought to be associated with it.
Good outcomes, such as reduced placement breakdown, improved mental health in children and returning home, may be more a result of factors that preceded placement. Children who have direct contact with birth parents usually already have a good attachment to them, which precedes their placement and because of this they may be better adjusted, more likely to experience a stable placement and more likely to go home to their parents (54). More research is urgently needed in this area.
Current practice assumes a strong underlying principle, supported by legislation, that contact is generally beneficial and should be promoted as long as it is in the child’s best interests and does not increase risk (55). However in some situations there may often be dilemmas and concerns about contact.
Views of foster carers
Foster carers, whilst generally positive about contact, report some serious problems associated with it. These include drinking, serious mental health problems and violence from members of the birth family. They also express concern about more common problems such as unreliability and have worries about the impact of contact on the behaviour of the foster child, as well as their own children

Serious Case Reviews Findings For Your Area

Local area SCR evaluation Date of
evaluation
letter
Somerset Inadequate 24/07/2007
Lambeth Inadequate 23/08/2007
Derbyshire Adequate 17/09/2007
Durham Good 17/09/2007
Surrey Good 17/09/2007
Lancashire Good 04/10/2007
Sandwell Inadequate 04/10/2007
Derbyshire Adequate 22/10/2007
Lincolnshire Adequate 23/10/2007
Essex Adequate 26/10/2007
Staffordshire Inadequate 16/11/2007
Bury Good 19/11/2007
Shropshire Inadequate 26/11/2007
Bristol Adequate 27/11/2007
Barnsley Adequate 29/11/2007
Thurrock Inadequate 11/12/2007
Leicestershire Adequate 20/12/2007
Northamptonshire Inadequate 21/12/2007
Trafford Adequate 21/12/2007
Sheffield Good 27/12/2007
Bristol Inadequate 04/01/2008
Lincolnshire Inadequate 15/01/2008
Bury Adequate 22/01/2008
Hertfordshire Inadequate 28/01/2008
Walsall Good 29/01/2008
Hampshire Good 31/01/2008
Derbyshire Adequate 05/02/2008
Hampshire Adequate 05/02/2008
Havering Good 10/02/2008
Southend Good 19/02/2008
Doncaster Adequate 21/02/2008
Cheshire Adequate 26/02/2008
South Tyneside Adequate 26/02/2008
Suffolk Good 26/02/2008
Doncaster Inadequate 29/02/2008
Rochdale Good 29/02/2008
Northamptonshire Inadequate 03/03/2008
Northamptonshire Inadequate 03/03/2008
Derbyshire Inadequate 06/03/2008
Worcestershire Good 11/03/2008
Warwickshire Good 25/03/2008
Bromley Adequate 01/04/2008
Cornwall Inadequate 04/04/2008
Cornwall Inadequate 07/04/2008
Suffolk Inadequate 07/04/2008
Nottingham City Inadequate 11/04/2008
Hampshire Adequate 09/04/2008
Hampshire Inadequate 09/04/2008
Northamptonshire Adequate 10/04/2008
Cornwall Inadequate 11/04/2008
Herefordshire Good 14/04/2008
Hampshire Adequate 16/04/2008
Nottingham City Adequate 16/04/2008
Rotherham Inadequate 18/04/2008
Nottingham City Good 21/04/2008
Warwickshire Adequate 21/04/2008
Rotherham Inadequate 22/04/2008
Oxfordshire Adequate 23/04/2008
Southwark Adequate 24/04/2008
Havering Adequate 02/05/2008
Bolton Inadequate 06/05/2008
Peterborough Inadequate 14/04/2008
Birmingham Inadequate 25/06/2008
Birmingham Inadequate 25/06/2008
Birmingham Inadequate 26/06/2008
Nottingham City Adequate 26/06/2008
Durham Adequate 27/06/2008
Somerset Adequate 27/06/2008
Portsmouth Inadequate 03/07/2008
Tower Hamlets Adequate 18/07/2008
Shropshire Good 21/07/2008
Barnsley Inadequate 22/07/2008
Stockport Inadequate 22/07/2008
Tower Hamlets Good 25/07/2008
Manchester Inadequate 05/08/2008
Surrey Inadequate 05/08/2008
Surrey Inadequate 05/08/2008
Surrey Inadequate 05/08/2008
West Berkshire Adequate 05/08/2008
Devon Inadequate 08/08/2008
North East Lincolnshire Inadequate 11/08/2008
Bromley Adequate 12/08/2008
Birmingham Adequate 14/08/2008
Hertfordshire Adequate 14/08/2008
Kent Good 14/08/2008
Kirklees Adequate 14/08/2008
Rotherham Adequate 14/08/2008
South Tyneside Good 14/08/2008
Manchester Adequate 22/08/2008
Middleborough Inadequate 26/08/2008
Devon Inadequate 28/08/2008
Redbridge Good 29/08/2008
Plymouth Inadequate 02/09/2008
Bradford Inadequate 04/09/2008
Devon Adequate 04/09/2008
Norfolk Adequate 04/09/2008
Northamptonshire Inadequate 05/09/2008
Enfield Good 09/09/2008
Reading Inadequate 09/09/2008
Waltham Forest Adequate 09/09/2008
Barnet Good 16/09/2008
Coventry Adequate 16/09/2008
Coventry Good 16/09/2008
Hounslow Inadequate 17/09/2008
Kent Adequate 18/09/2008
Lambeth Good 18/09/2008
Salford Inadequate 18/09/2008
Wolverhampton Good 18/09/2008
Oxfordshire Inadequate 23/09/2008
Coventry Adequate 24/09/2008
Northumberland Adequate 26/09/2008
Bournemouth Inadequate 01/10/2008
Bournemouth Inadequate 01/10/2008
Liverpool Inadequate 01/10/2008
Thurrock Adequate 01/10/2008
Wakefield Adequate 01/10/2008
Leicestershire Inadequate 03/10/2008
Leeds Adequate 06/10/2008
Barking & Dagenham Good 17/10/2008
Manchester Adequate 17/10/2008
Manchester Inadequate 17/10/2008
Nottinghamshire Adequate 17/10/2008
South Tyneside Adequate 17/10/2008
Wigan Adequate 21/10/2008
Northamptonshire Inadequate 22/10/2008
Westminster Good 28/10/2008
Worcestershire Good 11/11/2008
Sandwell Adequate 31/10/2008
Croydon Inadequate 05/11/2008
Derbyshire Adequate 05/11/2008
Blackburn with Darwen Adequate 06/11/2008
Bristol Inadequate 07/11/2008
Nottinghamshire Adequate 07/11/2008
Ealing Adequate 11/11/2008
Newcastle Adequate 11/11/2008
Norfolk Adequate 19/11/2008
Camden Adequate 25/11/2008
Salford Inadequate 25/11/2008
Lancashire Inadequate 24/11/2008
Birmingham Inadequate 28/11/2008
Wokingham Inadequate 27/11/2008
Devon Inadequate 01/12/2008
Stockport Adequate 08/12/2008
Essex Inadequate 09/12/2008
Liverpool Good 10/12/2008
Hackney Adequate 12/12/2008
Somerset Good 19/12/2008
Somerset Good 19/12/2008
Bradford Adequate 29/12/2008
Croydon Good 29/12/2008
Greenwich Good 29/12/2008
North Yorkshire Adequate 29/12/2008
York Adequate 29/12/2008
Norfolk Inadequate 05/01/2009
Hampshire Good 12/01/2009
Kingston upon Thames Adequate 12/01/2009
Bexley Inadequate 19/01/2009
Hampshire Adequate 20/01/2009
Kent Good 20/01/2009
Kirklees Inadequate 20/01/2009
Peterborough Inadequate 20/01/2009
Tower Hamlets Good 20/01/2009
Brighton & Hove Good 23/01/2009
Calderdale Adequate 23/01/2009
Kingston upon Hull Adequate 23/01/2009
Cornwall Good 26/01/2009
Gloucestershire Adequate 26/01/2009
Lincolnshire Adequate 26/01/2009
Rotherham Good 26/01/2009
Witshire Inadequate 26/01/2009
Lincolnshire Adequate 28/01/2009
North Somerset Good 28/01/2009
Sefton Adequate 28/01/2009
Surrey Adequate 28/01/2009
Isle of Wight Inadequate 30/01/2009
Northamptonshire Adequate 30/01/2009
Portsmouth Good 30/01/2009
Suffolk Adequate 30/01/2009
Derbyshire Inadequate 02/02/2009
Cumbria Inadequate 03/02/2009
Worcestershire Adequate 04/02/2009
Doncaster Adequate 06/02/2009
Halton Adequate 06/02/2009
Poole Adequate 06/02/2009
Wirral Good 06/02/2009
Hammersmith & Fulham Adequate 09/02/2009
Hackney Good 13/02/2009
Manchester Adequate 13/02/2009
Blackpool Inadequate 16/02/2009
Kingston upon Thames Inadequate 17/02/2009
Lancashire Inadequate 17/02/2009
Calderdale Good 18/02/2009
Southampton Adequate 18/02/2009
Lancashire Inadequate 19/02/2009
Shropshire Inadequate 23/02/2009
Nottingham City Adequate 25/02/2009
Rochdale Inadequate 27/02/2009
Southampton Inadequate 27/02/2009
Manchester Adequate 03/03/2009
Essex Adequate 04/03/2009
Rochdale Inadequate 12/03/2009
Staffordshire Adequate 13/03/2009
Nottingham City Adequate 17/03/2009
Sandwell Adequate 17/03/2009
Leicester City Adequate 20/03/2009
Buckinghamshire Good 23/03/2009
Enfield Good 23/03/2009
Kent Good 23/03/2009
Sheffield Good 23/03/2009
Sheffield Good 23/03/2009
Doncaster Inadequate 24/03/2009
Kent Good 24/03/2009
Cambridgeshire Adequate 26/03/2009
Enfield Adequate 26/03/2009
Leeds Adequate 30/03/2009
Haringey Good 07/04/2009
Devon Inadequate 09/04/2009
Gloucestershire Adequate 09/04/2009
North Tyneside Adequate 15/04/2009
Hampshire Inadequate 23/04/2009
Kirklees Adequate 23/04/2009
Leicestershire Adequate 27/04/2009
Milton Keynes Good 27/04/2009
North East Lincolnshire Inadequate 27/04/2009
Essex Adequate 29/04/2009
Sandwell Adequate 29/04/2009
Blackburn with Darwen Inadequate 30/04/2009
Bromley Adequate 30/04/2009
Norfolk Adequate 30/04/2009
Southampton Adequate 30/04/2009
Staffordshire Inadequate 30/04/2009
Tower Hamlets Good 30/04/2009
Birmingham Adequate 01/05/2009
Birmingham Adequate 01/05/2009
Dorset Good 01/05/2009
Leeds Good 05/05/2009
Middlesborough Good 06/05/2009
Wakefield Adequate 06/05/2009
Southampton Adequate 07/05/2009
Brent Adequate 13/05/2009
North East Lincolnshire Adequate 13/05/2009
Westminster Good 13/05/2009
Blackburn with Darwin Inadequate 14/05/2009
Durham Good 14/05/2009
Liverpool Good 14/05/2009
Coventry Adequate 15/05/2009
Dudley Good 15/05/2009
Manchester Good 15/05/2009
Wakefield Good 15/05/2009
Cheshire Inadequate 20/05/2009
Doncaster Good 20/05/2009
Doncaster Good 21/05/2009
North Tyneside Inadequate 04/06/2009
Sunderland Adequate 08/06/2009
Knowsley Good 08/06/2009
Knowsley Adequate 08/06/2009
East Sussex Inadequate 12/06/2009
Cheshire East Inadequate 12/06/2009
Dorset Adequate 15/06/2009
Sutton Inadequate 26/08/2009
Royal Borough of
Windsor and
Maidenhead
Good 25/06/2009
North Somerset Good 25/06/2009
Stockton-on-Tees Inadequate 26/06/2009
Luton Adequate 30/06/2009
Cumbria Inadequate 30/06/2009
Surrey Good 30/06/2009
Redcar & Cleveland Inadequate 06/07/2009
Sutton Inadequate 26/08/2009
Halton Good 06/07/2009
Camden Adequate 06/07/2009
Salford Adequate 03/07/2009
Hampshire Adequate 14/07/2009
St Helen’s Adequate 27/07/2009
Southwark Good 29/07/2009
Bexley Good 29/07/2009
Tameside Inadequate 30/07/2009
Lincolnshire Inadequate 30/07/2009
Liverpool Adequate 31/07/2009
Shropshire Good 03/08/2009
Lancashire Adequate 03/08/2009
Wirral Adequate 03/08/2009
Greenwich Good 03/08/2009
Torbay Adequate 25/09/2009
Essex Adequate 04/08/2009
East Sussex Inadequate 05/08/2009
Barnet Inadequate 07/08/2009
Peterborough Adequate 07/08/2009
Worcestershire Adequate 11/08/2009
Kirklees Adequate 11/08/2009
Wigan Good 12/08/2009
Poole Good 14/08/2009
Greenwich Good 14/08/2009
Haringey Adequate 10/09/2009
Herts Adequate 15/09/2009
Surrey Good 15/09/2009
Northumberland Adequate 15/09/2009
Kirklees Good 15/09/2009
Birmingham Adequate 17/09/2009
Lancashire Adequate 18/09/2009
Durham Adequate 21/09/2009
Havering Good 23/09/2009
Kirklees Good 23/09/2009
Lancashire Adequate 28/09/2009

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  ©

Domestic Violence And The Courts

1
Children Act 1989
You and your ex are equally valuable parents.
Your ex could even become the main carer. Parenting history doesn’t matter.
HMICA 20051
If you turn to the courts for help, there’s a good chance
Cafcass will be unsympathetic, and pressurise you to agree contact.
Ministry of Justice, Sept 20082
Even if you have serious concerns about your ex’s violence, contact is likely to be granted.
Children and Adoption Act, Dec 2008
If you do not support contact you may be ordered to attend parenting classes.
Your ex won’t have to.
You might also have to pay his costs. Financial abuse by ex partner not relevant.
The injustice never ends.
The abuse never ends.
It’s the law.
Supporting mothers before, during and after parental separation and divorce
supporting mothers before, during and after parental separation and divorce
Response to Government Consultation paper
Together we can end violence against women and girls
30th
April 2009
Maypole is a new organisation supporting women involved in separation and divorce.
We therefore focus on domestic violence in the context of women separating from the fathers of
their children, and their experiences of parenting after separation.
The new Maypole web site http://www.maypole.org.uk will be launched May 2009. The site includes a
large section of evidence based information about domestic violence and separation3.
The accompanying poster is a hypothetical one, alerting mothers to the fact that separating from
their partner may not end the abuse. The Children Act 1989, and its interpretation and
implementation, play a significant role in the opportunity for abusive fathers to continue to abuse
their children and ex partners after separation (see below). There are therefore no easy choices
for women wanting to leave an abusive relationship.
For further information please contact: ask@maypole.org.uk
Separation and domestic violence
There is a strong link between separation, domestic violence and the long term safety of mothers
and their children, because:
domestic abuse is a major cause of relationship breakdown
separation is recognised as one of the main trigger points for abuse
domestic abuse can continue, and even increase, after separation
the most common ways abusive men continue to abuse their ex partners is by child
contact and money
abuse can damage the mother child relationship
abuse can disadvantage women in residency and contact disputes
How common is domestic abuse in separating couples?
A number of research studies have found that domestic violence is a major factor in relationship
breakdown 4. A Government report showed that allegations of domestic violence occurred in as
many as 90% of separating couples who turn to the family courts to resolve disputes about
residency and contact5.
This figure must be considered with other research that shows that:
women are more likely to experience domestic violence than men, and their experiences
6
involve more serious incidents of abuse
women are more likely to under report domestic violence than they are to make false
allegations7
8
a common abusive tactic is for the abuser to accuse the victim of abuse
There are therefore indications that the majority of cases in family court procedures involve
families in which there is a history of domestic violence against the mother.
The risk of domestic abuse increases at the time of separation. It can be particularly difficult for a
woman to escape an abusive relationship if she is required to encourage contact between her
children and an abusive ex partner.
Why is domestic abuse common at separation?
Domestic abuse is defined as the misuse of power and control, usually by a man over his female
partner. Abusive men are often possessive and retaliatory in nature.
The end of an abusive relationship, especially if it is initiated by the woman, signifies the loss of
the man’s ability to control his partner. An increase in abusive tactics is therefore an attempt by
some men to punish their partner, and to reinstate ownership and control over her.
Abusive fathers after separation
As a relationship ends, child contact can become the only means left to an abusive father to
control his ex partner, and continue the abuse. Research has shown that, for many men who have
a history of abuse towards the mother, caring for the child is not the main motivation in the pursuit
of contact9.
Research has also shown that continuing violence towards the mother increases the risk that
children will be abused during contact visits10 .
The tendency of abusive fathers to put their own needs before their children’s means that some
will insist on contact even when they know their children are frightened of them11 .
Abusive fathers are more likely than non abusive fathers to apply for residency of their children 12 .
As well as enabling them to continue the abuse, a desire for residency or contact can be motivated
by:
financial gain, eg to obtain a greater share of joint equity or avoid child support
the abuser’s distorted perception of his ex partner’s and his own parenting skills
In considering residency and contact claims, the following should be of significant weight in
considering the best interests of mother and child:
the father’s history of caring skills and commitment
allegations of abuse by the mother
the father’s reasons for wanting to change his level of involvement
Residency and contact should be dependent on responsible parenting. Because children’s safety
lies with their non-abusive parent, responsible parenting must include genuine respect for the
mother, her parenting role, and the mother child relationship.
How abusive fathers use their children to continue abuse after separation
Common tactics13 include:
shaping the child(ren)’s view of their mother
lack of boundaries (including lack of routine, supervision, safety and care)
being competitive with the mother
forcing the child to withdraw, reject, harass or abuse their mother
financial control, eg
o
withholding joint money or child support
o
bartering child contact with financial assets or child support
threatening to apply, or applying, for increased contact or residency
These behaviours, when occurring as a pattern of undermining and controlling behaviour, can
create severe psychological distress for mother and child(ren), undermine a mother’s ability to
parent to her best capacity, and weaken the child(ren)’s relationship with the parent who is most
able to meet their needs14. The stresses on women sharing care with emotionally abusive and
controlling ex partners can be debilitating, yet these difficulties, and the effects on children, are
largely invisible to professionals and policy makers.
Research is urgently needed on the realities for women of living with continuing emotional abuse
after separation.
Are abusive fathers granted residency or contact?
Yes15. Courts act on a presumption of contact, assuming that contact with both parents is almost
always beneficial to the child, even when there is a history of abuse. A detailed study of contact
applications filed in 2004 found in 60% of cases where the resident parent opposed contact,
because of ‘serious welfare issues’ (the greatest proportion of which involved allegations of
domestic violence and child abuse), staying or unsupervised contact was granted 16 .
Domestic abuse can have far reaching, negative effects on mothering and family dynamics, and
these, combined with the use of abusive tactics17 in court, and a family court system which is
inadequately trained in understanding abuse18, means that abusive fathers can gain advantages in
19
court .
Providing an opportunity for abusive men to claim residency and contact through law is
inappropriate, endangering women and children, and is a poor use of resources.
Mismatch between legal ideology and reality of parenting roles
The Children Act 1989, on which UK family law is based, assumes that parents are equal.
However, equal parenting before separation is rare – so rare, in fact, it can be seen as an
ideological myth, rather than a reality (Eichler, 1988, writing at the time when the Children Act
1989 was formulated, noted no research studies had found couples who shared ‘truly symmetrical’
child care responsibilities20.)
Research has consistently shown that in the majority of families, it is the mother who holds the
main responsibility for the children, even when she is also employed outside the home21. Mothers
are almost always the primary care giver – a role usually negotiated and agreed by the parents
when living together.
Most couples who manage, at separation, to agree child care arrangements without the
involvement of the courts, do so by replicating previous gender roles, in which the mother
continues to take greatest responsibility for the children22 A continuation of parental roles
established when the relationship was intact therefore avoids conflict, and provides children with
stability and continuity of care.
Boyd (2003) points out that ‘genuine shared parenting after separation or divorce requires certain
conditions, which are difficult to meet, before it can succeed’. The most important factors are good
communication and ‘parents (who) have a history of shared parenting responsibilities before they
split up’23 .
The failure to consider past parenting history, and expectations of shared care which are
inconsistent with that parenting history, means abusive behaviour often becomes invisible in the
family courts, putting women and children at risk.
The disempowerment of women in family law
Women are almost always the primary carer of their children The identity of women who have
children is deeply entwined with that of mother, and they gain a deep sense of satisfaction and
well being from their mothering role24 .
At separation fathers are able to retain their ‘status as a citizen in paid employment’ 25while the
Children Act 1989 creates a situation in which the role of the mother, as primary care giver, is
something that is ‘up for grabs’, something that can be competed for, and fought over.
The fact that a father who has not been the primary care giver, can take that role from a mother
after separation, either by applying for residency through the courts, or encouraging a child to live
with him, presents a threat to women’s identities and main role in life26 .
Current family law, which assumes a gender neutral approach, ignores the fact that women as
primary care givers are usually the psychological parent to children, and an enforced change in
residency is ‘unfair to the mother and potentially harmful to the child’27 .
Anecdotally, many women live with the fear of losing their children to their ex partners, and their
role as primary care giver, for years after separation. Fear is a major factor in abuse against
28
women .
To take the role of primary care giver from a woman, without her consent, and without providing
emotional support or an alternative identity, is a deeply traumatic experience29 .
When shared care occurs, mothers usually continuing to have greatest responsibility for child care,
but with an obligation to consult with her ex partner on certain matters, at least some of which he
may have previously been happy to delegate to her.
The Children Act 1989 therefore creates a situation which increases men’s power over women.
Domestic abuse is defined as the ‘misuse of power and control’. Research and government
statistics suggest that fathers with a history of abuse often turn to the family courts to assert this
power. In fact, fathers with a history of abuse could be the largest group of service users
accessing the family court system.
The family court system becomes, for many women, a continuation of the abuse they have
experienced in their relationship. The law does not allow women and their children to escape
domestic violence.
Listening to mothers
Emotional abuse is frequently reported as both the most common type of abuse, and the most
damaging. Yet emotional abuse leaves no trace, and is easily ignored by professionals. Domestic
violence can never be properly addressed until emotional abuse is understood and managed.
Women’s accounts are the evidence. Women are the experts, and professionals must respect,
and learn from, women.
Courts frequently make orders supporting contact between the father and child which disregard
mothers’ concerns about their own, and their children’s, safety. In a review of over 300 cases in
2008, in which contact was sought (mostly by non resident fathers), serious welfare issues were
raised by the resident parent (mainly mothers) in 63% of all cases, yet direct contact was only
refused in 21% of cases30 .
‘American research has shown that women tend to report what has occurred accurately, with
accounts that remain consistent over time and in response to interrelated interview questions,
together with evidence from hospital and arrest records to substantiate their stories’31 .
Listening to women ‘is also important because women are the only ones who can say whether
they are still living in fear, even if the actual violence has stopped’32 .
A woman’s estimate of the level of risk has been shown to be the ‘single strongest predictor of
future violence by a batterer33 .
Studies confirm that women report adversely affects on their children when contact with an
34
abusive father is enforced.
Court decisions granting contact between a father and child, where there is a history of poor
parental responsibility or care, builds up paternal expectations, while expecting mothers to act in
ways which, in their view, are contrary to the child’s best interests. The resulting conflict, danger
and distress is a consequence of working against, rather than with, conventional maternal roles
and social norms, in which mothers are almost always the primary care giver and psychological
parent to the child.
Contact decisions are much more likely to be supported by mothers if their concerns are listened
to, respected, and incorporated into a contact plan which manages, rather than ignores, welfare
issues.
Understanding the link between abuse to the mother and risk to the children
In a detailed study of child protection work, Farmer and Owen (1995) found ‘the children with the
worst outcomes were especially likely to have mothers who were being abused by their male
partners, although the domestic violence tended to be ignored by the professionals involved’35 .
Bancroft and Silverman (2002), and others, express concern that some court evaluators do not
appreciate the risk of murder of children by an abusive father. ‘Where children have been killed,
the significance of violence to the mothers as an indicator of potential risk to the children has
tended not to be understood or acknowledged36 .
Financial disempowerment
At separation, a father, through paid employment, has ‘access to resources and benefits which go
with this status’ while the mother is ‘unlikely to have a well paid, secure job; indeed, she may not
be in the labour market at all … she cannot hope to become a self sufficient, independent citizen
for several years … she remains extremely economically vulnerable37’.
Women who have experienced domestic violence are most vulnerable, as they may have been
prevented from working, or gaining financial independence. Financial abuse may have occurred
during the relationship, and at separation. Residency and contact claims can be a form of financial
abuse, removing from the mother, who is already in a weak financial position, access to child
related state benefits.
Mothers need to retain access to child related state benefits. The current system of measuring
primary care by the number of nights a child spends with each parent leaves women open to
financial abuse by ex partners.
When fathers gain residency at separation, the courts’ concentration on providing a home for the
child means financial abuse by the father is often ignored. Financial abuse should be considered
as illegal as rape within marriage, and should be of primary concern to the courts.
Mothers also need, and deserve, support in re-establishing themselves in paid employment at a
level commensurate with their abilities, training and experience.
Lack of equity in assessing and supporting parental skills
A very common complaint is that mothers and fathers’ parenting skills are assessed to different
standards. Professionals can be ‘very optimistic about men’s parenting skills, while scrutinizing
women’s parenting in much greater detail’38. These double standards and lax attitude to fathers’
parenting skills victimise women and endanger children; fathers need to be able to provide
evidence of consistent, sustained, responsible parenting before contact is granted.
Even when men are abusive, professionals tend to focus on the need for the woman to change39 .
‘Women’s efforts to manage violent men and their difficulty in escaping violence must be
understood in the wider context of a moral climate that places responbsibility for family problems
on women’40 .
Using force to change parenting roles
Successful shared parenting relies on trust, respect and constructive communication between
parents. A mutual dedication to the concept of shared parenting is essential. Parents who cannot
agree – and find themselves in court -are the very parents for whom the philosophy of shared
parenting has already failed. An enforced order ignores the necessity for an internal belief in the
benefits of shared care, and voluntary co-operation. Enforced orders are therefore likely to cause
distress, and even trauma, both to the primary care giver and her children. In many cases,
enforced co-parenting will be a contradictory and meaninglessness concept, as the causes of
resistance are not addressed.
Punitive approaches, particularly in the context of limited resources and research, put many
women, and their children, at risk. Intervention which is ‘unwilling to understand (women’s) needs
see them only as mothers, partners or recipients who have failed to take responsibility’ puts
women ‘in danger of being re-victimised’41 .
Recent provisions for enforcing contact (Children Act, Dec 2008) is an example of an approach
that pays no attention to the needs of mothers. For a detailed explanation of the challenges facing
women in promoting contact see http://www.maypole.org.uk/separation and divorce/ your children/ when
mothers do not support contact.
Psychological needs of mothers ignored
‘Studies have repeatedly revealed social workers’ tendency to focus narrowly on the children, to
the detriment of women’s safety and sometimes of children’s safety, because the danger to
children from a man who abuses his partner is not recognised42’.
The Children Act 1989 ignores the psychological needs of all mothers. A mother is expected to
‘give up her ‘special’ relationship (for the sake of the children) and hence her status as primary
carer. But she must also amend her status as a dependent, earn enough money to support herself
and (in part) the children, accrue benefits against the exigencies of illness and old age, and
become autonomous and self sufficient … In this process she is unlikely to have much support
from The Children Act, the legal profession or the mediation services, none of whom give priority
to, or even much consideration to, the needs of mothers’43 .
The emphasis on the welfare of the child, and contact with fathers, profoundly devalues mothering:
‘It is extremely hard for women to be mothers and (paid) workers … if mothers give up these rights
in order to meet the welfare of their children, it seems a hard lesson to insist that this was an
irrelevant sacrifice at the point when they divorce, especially as the routes back into (the benefits
of paid employment) are so limited. The active pursuit – by family law-of equal, joint parenting
after divorce combined with welfare and employment policies which make equal joint parenting
during marriage virtually impossible for the majority, gives rise to a form of disenfranchisement of
motherhood’44 .
Contact and residency arrangements need to reflect parenting roles adopted before separation.
Women’s attempts to protect their status as primary care taker, in the absence of legal protection,
can hinder mothers from facilitating contact45. The current system ignores women’s special
contribution to child care and subsequent psychological and financial vulnerability.
Women who have experienced abuse and have children are likely to lose the most at separation.
They can, and do, lose their mental health, self worth, career and home. Women can also lose
their children to abusive men, and with them their main identity and role in life.
Government statistics suggest that approximately 700,000 children in the UK were living with a
lone father, or father and step mother, in 2006. HM Revenue and Customs recorded 7,529,00
families claiming child benefit in August 2007, and calculated that approximately 7% of claimants
were male. This equates to 527,079 fathers recorded as the main carer of their child(ren).
It is difficult to estimate how many mothers this involves, as a mother may live with one or more of
her children whilst one or more live apart from her, and these figures include widowed fathers. It is
also impossible to estimate how many mothers have chosen to be apart from their children
voluntarily. Narratives from mothers who have lost contact with their children at or after separation
include vocabulary that indicates they have all have experienced domestic violence46. The belief
that their ex partners were actually ‘aided and abetted’ by Cafcass, ie Cafcass failed to identify
abuse and actually supported the father’s claim, is a common theme47 .
It is not known how many women are affected, but a conservative estimate puts the number in the
high hundreds, and possibly thousands48. This is consistent with Child Benefit statistics, above. It
is also consistent with the HMICA report (2005) which found that ‘the nature of domestic abuse is
not sufficiently understood by most CAFCASS practitioners. Routine ways of working do not
assess risk and some are dangerous’49 .
This could mean that thousands of children have lost contact with their primary care giver, and
now live in the sole care of an abusive father.
Isolation of victims is a common abusive tactic. Mothers who have lost contact with their children
suffer the worst type of isolation, and live with on-going bereavement. Because women usually
have an especially close psychological connection with their children, their trauma is particularly
acute. Their children are also isolated from the parent who is most able to meet their needs.
Maypole calls for a review of all cases where Cafcass have failed to identify domestic violence and
protect women and children, as evidenced by the HMICA report 2005.
Understanding of how domestic violence presents, and the effects on family dynamics, must be
urgently improved, to protect women and children.
Meeting the needs of children
The needs of mothers, fathers, and their children, are diverse, and can be contradictory. The rights
of fathers, and the benefit of paternal care, has dominated recent discourse in finding solutions to
family breakdown.
McBean (1987),writing just before the introduction of The Children Act (1989), notes that ‘fathers
have rarely been the prime caretakers of the children, and therefore rarely the main psychological
parents of children. The disruption of the bond between the psychological parent and child should
50
be avoided in the best interests of the child’.
Continuing contact with both parents is only one of several factors which contribute to good
outcomes for children. Many researchers believe the well being of a child’s primary care giver is
inseparable from the needs of the child51 .
There is growing awareness that the rights of some parents to have contact with their children
have been prioritised before safety 52 .
Mothers’ concerns are often not taken seriously by the courts53. Either women are not being
believed, or the risk of harm to the mother and her child(ren) is not fully understood. Research
suggests both are true 54 .
This is in contrast to a belief that mothers are the best predictor of their partner, or ex partner’s,
capacity for further abuse 55 .
Women’s resources to seek protection
‘Women fleeing abuse are frequently on very low incomes, since, whatever their socio-economic
status before the violence, they commonly leave with nothing’56. Yet the majority of women leaving
abusive relationships will not qualify for legal aid. Some mothers have spent tens of thousands of
pounds seeking protection from abusive partners in the family courts57. This has serious
implications for their ability to recover from the abuse, and provide an adequate standard of living
for their children. Women should not have to fund their own protection from abuse. The situation is
particularly dire as women invariably fail to gain the protection through the courts they feel they
need.
How children’s coping strategies to abuse can cause them to reject their mother
Cafcass can place great emphasis on the preferences of older children. However, children’s
strategies in coping with abuse can sometimes cause them to distance themselves emotionally
from their mother, and form an apparent closer bond with the abusive parent.
Until this phenomenon is understood, and incorporated into practice, court evaluators will fail to
make accurate assessments of children’s needs.
Coping strategies include ‘siding with their father, including sometimes joining in with the abuse of
58 59
the mother’and expressing anger and aggression towards her.
Children can find to very difficult to identify and express their own needs: ‘the batterer’s tendency
to be retaliatory has important implications for children who disclose abuse to outsiders’60 .
The effects of domestic abuse on family relationships is highly complex. Accurate evaluations
cannot be made until the level of training and monitoring is significantly improved. For more
information on how domestic violence can damage the mother child relationship see
http://www.maypole.org.uk/ separation ad divorce/ domestic violence/ damage to the mother child
relationship.
Mothers’ recovery from abuse
The parenting skills of mothers who have been abused often improve significantly after
61 62
separationif they are able to escape the abuser’s ‘chronic undermining’and recover from
abuse induced trauma. Shared care with an abusive ex partner does not allow women to recover
from abuse. This also has implications for their children.
Improved training
Domestic violence, and how it affects family dynamics, is highly complex. Training is utterly
inadequate – many professionals working with families receive training which briefly summarises
the four types of domestic violence, and then concentrates on child abuse. The link from protecting
the mother to safeguarding is often absent.
With this level of training, failure to identify abuse, and errors in assessment, will happen
frequently. The detail of knowledge needed for professionals, including court evaluators, is found
in The Batterer as Parent, by Lundy Bancroft. The book is based on clinical experience working
with over 2000 abusive men and their partners, and comprehensive review of research. Although
American, the information is highly relevant to the UK, and accurately reflects many women’s
experiences in the UK family courts.
The detail provided by Bancroft includes an in depth account of:
characteristics of men who abuse
the abuser’s parenting style
the abuser’s impact on family relationships
motivations of abusive fathers in seeking residency and contact
tactics used by abusive men in court disputes
factors disadvantaging women in court disputes
factors which should be considered in assessing risk to children
how to identify permanent change in an abuser
recommendations to improve court evaluators’ practice
recommendations to therapists working with children exposed to domestic violence
This level of knowledge should be mandatory for all court evaluators, and expert witnesses.
Monitoring of Cafcass officers’ ability to implement training is also urgently needed.
Improved use of resources
The amount of time allocated to Cafcass officers to manage each case is totally inadequate when
abuse is alleged or suspected. Too few resources are spent on too many cases. Assessing abuse
in sufficient detail during family disputes in court is very time consuming.
The majority of mothers want their child(ren) to have a meaningful relationship with their father,
and actively promote contact63 but mothers need to trust their ex partner, and know their children
are safe.
By providing a family law system in which primary care giving is protected, and mothers are seen
as the experts on what contact is safe for their children, many cases can be dealt with more
efficiently, and indeed not come to the attention of the courts at all.
References
1 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005
2 Outcomes for applications to court for contact orders after parental separation and divorce, J
Hunt and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, Ministry of Justice, September
2008
3 References are kept to a minimum on the web site to ensure the information is user friendly to all
women. The same information, with greater details and full references, will be available in our
information leaflets, currently under development.
4 Walby 2004, Cockett and Tripp 1994, from Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin
and H Abrahams, 2000; Child Custody and Domestic Violence, P Jaffe, N Lemon and S Poisson,
2003, FLPAG, 2001
5 Domestic Violence Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005.
6 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000, British Crime Survey,
Walby and Allen, 2004
7 Dominy and Radford 1996, from Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester
2006 Yearnshaw, 1997. A study of over 2000 divorce cases in the US found that less than 2%
involved false allegations of abuse’ (Thoennes and Tjaden 1991, from Mothering Through
Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester, 2006).
8 The Batterrer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002
9 Radford and Hester, 2006, from Making an Impact, Children and Domestic Violence, M Hester, C
Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2007.
10 Hester and Pearson, 1996, from Making an Impact, Children and Domestic Violence, M Hester,
C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2007.
11 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000.
12 Mcmahon and Pence 1995, Liss and Stahly 1993, from Bancroft and Silverman, 2002.
13 Mothering Through Domestic Violence, L Radford and M Hester 2006; Bancroft and Silverman
2002.
14 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002.
15 Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt
and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, University of Oxford, 2008; The
Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002 (US accounts, but UK situations comparable);
personal conversations, anecdotal accounts and Portraits of Mothers Apart
16 Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt
and A MacLeod, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, University of Oxford, 2008.
17 Including manipulation, denial, and victim blaming.
18 Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings, HMICA, 2005.
19 The Batterer as Parent, Bancroft and Silverman, 2002.
20 Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003
21 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
22 Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003
23 Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003
24 The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood, S Hays, 1996
25 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
26 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
27
McBean, quoted in Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work, S Boyd, 2003
28 British Crime Survey, Walby and Allen, 2004
29 What are the experiences of women living apart from their children?, J Heathcote-Osborne,
2008
30 Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, J Hunt
and A Macleod, 2008
31 Gondolf 1998, from Is Anyone Listening? G Hague, A Mullender and R Aris, 2003
32 Is Anyone Listening? G Hague, A Mullender and R Aris, 2003
33 Weisz et al 2000, from Bancroft and Silverman, 2002
34 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
35 Quoted from from Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
36 James 1994, O’Hara 1994, Saunders 2004, from Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N
Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
37
The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
38 Hester and Radford 1996. Similar findings by Farmer and Owen 1995, Jaffe et al 2003
39 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
40 Dobash et al 2000, quoted in Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H
Abrahams, 2000
41 Making an Impact, M Hester, C Pearson, N Harwin and H Abrahams, 2000
42 Is Anyone Listening? G Hague, A Mullender and R Aris, 2003
43 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
44 The New Family, Ed E B Silva and C Smart, 1999
45 Children and their Families, Liz Trinder, 2003
46 Source approx 20 mothers; personal conversations, anecdotal accounts and Portraits of
47 Narratatives of mothers, as above.
48 Statistics from MAT