They are now being sued never ever give up x
EXPECT ME !
December 4, 2012
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. 
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.”
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
May 30, 2010
May 29, 2010
May 24, 2010
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.
May 3, 2010
MESSAGE FOR STAFFORDSHIRE LOCAL AUTHORITY please be law abiding citizens
After exposing that the most nazi branch of this authority advertised children without the mothers knowledge on bemyparent the forced adoption catalogue for BAAF.
Maybe as (per usual) it is up to me to educate the Local Authority on what is lawful or not.
Before advertising children as puppies you need CONSENT yes CONSENT.
We all know that you like to think of yourselves as being ABOVE THE LAW and that you glory in the knowing that you are never faced with any accountability.
But THERE ARE laws and procedures you are ( supposed ) to follow.This may come as a shock to the many of you that are not aware of these owing to your BULLY management team. For the majority of you , you will take no notice anyway.
This is from bemyparent website stating you need CONSENT and how to go about getting it.
Not how you advertised these children without the mothers knowledge that all have a sudden have DISAPPEARED from the site .
Unfortuately you did not manage to remove the evidence of you CRIME before a campaigner took a screenshot and made a video about it.
Now anyone with a subscription to bemyparent or BAAF will see that this profile no longer exists.
WHERE WILL THEY APPEAR NEXT ?
THE DAILY MIRROR ?
Please seek appropriate consent next time !!!!!
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)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/article_family_courts_jolly_good#incoming-84164
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 18, 2010
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.”
010
Judge in charge of family courts criticises ‘arrogant social workers’
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’
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 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
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’.
Wow ! Many thanks to everyone for a wonderful day .I will post vids and media on here as they arrive.
Well done to all !!!!
Staffordshire Social Services 