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



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

May 7, 2011



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.”




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.”


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…’
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.
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.
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.
In another, also apparently taken by Rebecca, Mrs Smith is seen smiling and apparently untroubled.

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
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.

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

May 3, 2010


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.,326,AR.html

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.



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

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.…

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…

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.


Cllr Sheena Williams ( Independent – Maidstone Borough Councillor)

Link to thisSend follow up

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:

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

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.”


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.

Social workers were ‘enthusiastic removers of children’

By Richard Garner, Education Editor

Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Ads by Google

Titan Casino Games Online
Download & Get Up To £4000 BonusTo Play Titan Casino. Play Now!

Spread Betting – Try Now
Try GFTs Award-Winning TradingPlatform. Free Practice Account.

William Hill™ Online
Get The Best Odds Online,Plus A Free £25 Bet. Join Now!

€200 Bonus at Bwin Casino
Best Casino Games & Hottest Dealsat Bwin Casino. Join Us Right Now!

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.

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?

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 !!!!

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.


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.

Blog at