Interesting reading

Moderator: AfterAdoption

Interesting reading

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:16 pm

Without Prejudice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lives ruined in secret

Thousands of children may have been snatched from families because of evidence given in camera

Nick Cohen
Sunday January 25, 2004
The Observer


The story of a couple I had better just call Mr and Mrs A is just one of thousands in the greatest miscarriage of justice of our times. The As lived in the West Country and had four children. The first died. The second was fine. The third died. By the time the mother was pregnant with the fourth, the local social services had decided to act. It's easy to write: 'The baby was taken from her at birth.'
It's harder to imagine feeling a child grow inside you, going through the agonies of labour and then - at a click of a bureaucrat's fingers - seeing your baby snatched away. The expert opinion of Professor Sir Roy Meadow and his disciples had been sought, and they had concluded that the mother was killing her babies.

There was no trial; she didn't have the opportunity to demand that the terrible accusations against her be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, a judge sitting in his chambers decided that, 'on the balance of probabilities', she was a killer. The interests of her surviving children must come first, and they must be taken into care. Unsurprisingly, given the loss of all her children, the mother's mind and marriage fell apart. She and her husband divorced, and he became the obvious candidate to bring up the children.

But there was a catch that the organisers of the Salem witch trials would have applauded. His solicitor, David Sterrett, explained that it wasn't enough for the witch to be condemned without trial. Her husband had to join the denigration of his ex-wife and say that she was a murderer. He didn't believe that for a moment and refused to go along with Meadow. His failure to accept the omniscience of the great man was intolerable. He was deemed unfit to look after his own children and has spent so many years in courts fighting for the right to visit them that his lawyer says he is broke and suffering from 'litigation fatigue'.

The couple might have gone to their local paper for help. They had a sensational story. Their children were to be taken because a professor was claiming the mother was suffering from an exotic condition, Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, which propelled her to kill her children as a means of gaining attention.

Perhaps one reporter in the West Country wouldn't have got very far, but the cumulative effect of reporters on papers around Britain covering the Munchausen mania would have warned the authorities that something akin to a medieval witch craze was sweeping the country. Pressure groups and politicians would have had some hard facts to get their teeth into and the few doctors prepared to break the omertà of the medical profession and dish the dirt on colleagues would have been mobilised.

As it was, Prof Meadow was deferred to for years. The scale of the injustice he contributed to makes the false convictions of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four look like trivial technical problems. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, said last week that 258 convictions for murder, infanticide and manslaughter will be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

They are merely an appetiser. Beyond the homicide convictions are the people such as Mr and Mrs A, who have had their children taken into care because they are presumed on the 'balance of probabilities' to be murderers or the aiders and abetters of murder, but have never had the chance to clear their names in court.

Margaret Hodge, the Children's Minister, said that 'thousands or even tens of thousands' of children may have been taken from their parents over the past 15 years because of Meadow's theories. Neither she nor anyone else could be certain because the mass seizure of children took place in camera. There was never a hope of the public being alerted and Meadow being stopped before he caused too much misery. The grotesque snatching of thousands of children was an operation conducted under conditions of the strictest secrecy. Anyone who blew the whistle on the proceedings of the family courts faced prosecution for contempt.

The maxim 'the interests of the child come first' is seductive. Who but a brute could disagree with it? Who would want the interests of the child to come second or third, or not be considered at all? But like many other sweet platitudes, it can lead to monstrous consequences. The supposed interests of the child dictate that mothers can be treated as murderers on 'the balance of probabilities' rather than because they have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If Meadow or one of his clique said that Munchausen's by proxy was probable, then that was enough. The supposed interests of the child also dictated that the courts must destroy families without public scrutiny because publicity would lead to the child being 'stigmatised'.

Yet its clearly not in the interests of the child for the courts to allow him or her to be taken from a loving and innocent mother. The interests being placed first here were the interests of Meadow and Family Court judges who have got away with destroying the lives of largely working-class women for more than a decade, secure in the knowledge that their crackpot theories would never be exposed or tested.

During the years of Meadow's ascendancy, the family courts resembled a secret society. Because there were no outside checks, Munchausen's by proxy became a theory that explained all inexplicable infant deaths. If a baby was fighting fit before dying, then Meadow would say that was proof that a Munchausen mother had smothered the child to attract attention. If a baby was ill before dying, then Meadow would say that was also proof that a Munchausen mother had smothered the child to attract attention.

Munchausen's was an incredible concept in crime fighting: whatever the circumstances, it could damn the guilty woman. It was only when the Court of Appeal spoilt everything by deciding that, while there was no evidence of smothering, there was plenty of evidence that the children were suffering from genetic disorders to such an extent that the universal efficacy of Munchausen's was questioned.

Secrecy allowed incompetence and mania to flourish, as it has done for 20 years. It is not too great an exaggeration to say that families have been forced into a legal world whose practices and assumptions are closer to those of a tyranny than a democracy.

It is a modern phenomenon. In the late 1980s, Iain Walker, a journalist on the Daily Mail, noticed that there was an explosion in the number of injunctions banning inquires about the state's treatment of children. In most cases, no one in his newsroom had the faintest idea who the children were or why the authorities thought reporters might be interested in them. But the injunctions kept dropping out of the fax machine. Disquieted by the assault on freedom of speech, Walker took a sabbatical at Oxford University and published an investigation into the closed world of the Family Courts. As ever, the interests of children came a poor second to the interests in covering up the rank failures of the bureaucracy.

The popularity of gagging orders began after the murder in 1987 of Jasmine Beckford, the Victoria Climbié of her day. Her brutal stepfather was free to kill her in the most revolting manner, even though she was on the at-risk register of Brent council in north London.

The council faced intense media criticism as journalists talked to Jasmine's brothers and sisters about its many failings. The courts agreed to a request from a desperate council that Jasmine's siblings should not be identified, and killed the story.

Brent's success in stopping unwelcome questions encouraged others to go further. Until the exposure of Meadow, the most shocking abuse of state power in family law had been perpetrated by social workers, who had fallen for the theories of American born-again Christians that rings of Satanists routinely abused then ritually sacrificed children in the covens of devil-worshippers. When Rochdale council was caught up in the witch craze, the courts happily granted an injunction that not only prevented the identification of the children involved, but also 'the solicitation or publication of any information about the circumstances of or the reason for those proceedings'.

Nothing could be done to investigate the actions of the social workers, who were eventually proved to be the dupes of hysterics. Even councillors were banned from speaking up for their constituents. As Walker said, Britain was coming perilously close to the 'pre-censorship of totalitarian regimes'.

Margaret Hodge and Helena Kennedy QC are investigating what can be done to clear up the wrecked lives that Meadow has left behind him. A modest first step would be that blundering theorists should not be protected by legal secrecy. If the authorities believe there is evidence to justify taking a child into care, they should present it in open court. If the judge thinks the child should not be named, that would be up to him or her, but the evidence should be tested in public.

After the Meadow disaster, it is time to return to the basic principle that justice is done in the light.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:18 pm

Nothing could be done to investigate the actions of the social workers, who were eventually proved to be the dupes of hysterics. Even councillors were banned from speaking up for their constituents. As Walker said, Britain was coming perilously close to the 'pre-censorship of totalitarian regimes'[i][

Quote from above, rather lengthy article.
Hmmmmmm.
Sorry, am trying to log in, having difficulty.
Josie
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:33 pm

I have no idea who this guy is...he could be a flake for all I know...but he is a bit of a mover and shaker out there....read this....sorry, it's awfully long, but pick through. It's interesting.
There are some good links and websites contained in this article
Josie




HELLO !!! LET ME INTRODUCE MYSELF
My name is IAN JOSEPHS and I try to help parents who are desperately trying to recover or at least make contact with children who have been snatched by social services. I live and work in Monte Carlo where I own and run a language school. I have an Oxford University law degree but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. So. . . . Who am I really ? and Why do I do what I do ?

I am NOT repeat NOT another "mother Teresa" and I never give to charity (in case I end up paying for the director's rolls royce!) but fighting the often brutal actions of Social Services is a cause very close to my heart. Social Services have never hurt me, my family or anyone close to me so I have no personal axe to grind but I HATE THE ABUSE OF POWER and particularly the way the bullies in social services ruthlessly destroy the very families they are supposed to protect. As a matter of principle I never charge a fee and never accept any money whatever for any expenses.

The reasons behind all this date back to the six years 1960-1966 when I was a Kent County Councillor and a mother came to me for help because social workers had taken away her son aged 12 of near genius IQ because he got bored at school and played truant! She was denied all contact and when I asked where he was and if as the mother's elected representative I could at least see him myself I was told to mind my own business ! I found him at a special private school owned by the deputy leader of the Labour party at the time that was charging exhorbitant fees more than 3 times those charged at ETON or HARROW ! Eventually after acrimonious debates in the council chamber and a court action he was returned to his mother and I was asked to help many other parents whose children had been removed for absurd reasons.

I applied in court for the discharge of care orders. I called the parents and sometimes the children themselves as witnesses in court against my own Council and I never lost a case so I was not best popular with my colleagues and the social workers! However after 6 years of neglecting my language school (then in Ramsgate) I decided not to stand at the next election as I really had to earn my living and look after my family so I reluctantly gave up the battle. . . . . for a time

In 2004 there was suddenly a lot of publicity when it was admitted that thousands of children had been wrongly taken from mothers who had been diagnosed with munchausen's syndrome, meaning that mothers who took their children to hospital too often were deliberately hurting them to draw attention to themselves ;This was one of the absurd notions of the now discredited professor Meadows which had no scientific basis that could possibly justify attributing the syndrome to so many unfortunate women. Worse still was his completely unproved theory that two cot deaths in the same family were 70 million to one ! Hundreds of women were condemned for murder. Their surviving children and babies born subsequently were taken away and given for adoption by strangers. Only later was it realised that genetic factors made it far more likely for cot deaths to repeat in the same family than elsewhere and odds reduced to about 60 to 1.

These cases were in the Criminal Courts so they got fully reported and this provoked me to write to the Daily Mail detailing some of my experiences on Kent County Council all those years ago. They published my letter and I was surprised subsequently to receive several requests from mothers and parents trying to recover and in some cases just to contact children snatched from them by social services. I am now comfortably off, my 7 children are adult, and I am in my seventies with the time, and still with the energy to once again take up the battle with social services !

Now the situation has got much worse !!
The Children Act 1989 enforced a blanket of secrecy over proceedings in the family courts. The press and public are not admitted, and even grandparents, aunts, and uncles are not permitted to sit in court to support the distraught parents of the children concerned as they are not parties to the case. This ruling exists on the absurd basis that it protects the identity of the children (from relatives who already know who the children are !!). What it does do however is prevent the exposure of the injustices that occur so regularly in the family courts, and worse still prevents any parent from complaining publicly about the way they and their children have been treated as if they reveal publicly the smallest detail of the court proceedings they risk prison for contempt of court.

So far,140 MPs from all parties think the same!!

House of Commons

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ... ESSION=875

http://www.msbp.com/secretcourts.htm

At the same time local authorities are more than happy to "advertise" the children whose identities all this secrecy is meant to protect on a website www.ukkids info (section "search") , and in magazines such as Adoption Today (from Adoption UK) with colour photographs, first names, ages, character descriptions, and financial incentives for potential adopters !! They even anticipate the verdict of the courts when they advertise for adoption children who are subject only to an interim care order .This does seem to indicate that the court secrecy exists not to protect the identity of the children but to make sure that parents and above all the press cannot expose the multitude of gross injustices that occur in the family courts. There is no such secrecy in Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/index.html#openess

and there is no reason why in the UK, the family courts should not at least follow the rules that govern procedure in our criminal courts when dealing with young offenders. It is significant that only in the criminal courts do parents ever win cases against the social services. Apart from the secrecy another reason for the injustices is that the judge decides a case in the family court "on the balance of probabilities" so in effect a parent may be found to have neglected children despite protestations of innocence because the judge will nearly always find it more probable that social workers and their paid "experts" are more accurate and truthful than the hapless parent. http://www.fathercare.org/cafcass05.htm


The sad fact is that social workers rarely "target" the violent type of parent who tortures , burns, and breaks a child's bones. Too often a nervous social worker retreats hastily and sometimes leaves the child to die. . . . Such violent parents practically never come to court to reclaim their surviving children so the family courts hold no terrors for them. Parents in the family court nowadays are those whose poverty is only too often equated with neglect, or those judged on an entirely subjective basis to have emotionally abused their children. In my opinion children can far better bear emotional abuse (if this really exists as a serious factor ) than the trauma of being separated from the family they know, and being given for adoption to strangers.

"LOVE" is not a term that is politically correct,so it is very rarely mentioned in the parental assessments and judicial pronouncements that decide the children's fate ."Bonding" is the preferred term employed by social workers for a "parent and child relationship,"and this portrayal can just as easily be applied to members of the Welsh rugby team !" Bonding really is not at all the same thing as "love"(especially the love of a child for its mother) which should surely be the most determining factor of all when deciding the future of a newborn baby or young child.

The LOVE of a child for a parent (or grandparent) and vice versa ought to (but rarely does ) outweigh the so called disadvantages of grandparents too old at 60 , or parents with learning disabilities,an ancient history of petty crime , extreme poverty, a dirty house ,or a long ago cured addiction. LOVE just does not count when weeping and highly emotional mothers plead in court for the return of their children yet IT SHOULD !! It certainly SHOULD !! Instead such parents frequently get accused in court of an "emotional instability" that further demonstrates their unfitness as parents! Unfortunately the "professionals" (often with no children of their own) who presume to make "parental assessments" consider resistance to fostering or adoption "non co-operation",and failure to "confess " to allegedly bad parenting "a retreat into denial",and as for "hostility and distrust" of the social workers who take the children,that is either a "personality disorder" or "paranoia"! This despite articles appearing regularly in the quality press expressing the strongest of criticisms and the same attitudes of distrust.Presumably not all these articles were written by paranoiacs !!

The Children Act also decided that only persons with parental responsibility could apply to have a care order discharged. This effectively stopped parents from asking a friend such as myself from conducting their case and left them either with the difficult task of representing themselves, or relying on the newly available legal aid lawyers. Unfortunately these "professional losers" normally advise their clients not to distress themselves with a hopeless fight aganst social services but to "cooperate' by agreeing to accept whatever care order or adoption placement that social services requested. This advice is given despite the fact that at any later disputed hearing the judge would often take a prior agreement to accept a care order as proof that the parents actually accepted the fact that the children were better off living elsewhere.

INTERESTING STATISTICS !!

JUST LOOK AT WHO IS CASHING IN !!

Baby Broker Tycoons

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n15648268



Millionaire Baby Brokers

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n15646428



Foster a baby and you gat a free loft

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n15648428



The situation deteriorated still further when Tony Blair called for an increase in the adoption figures of at least 40% in an effort to save the costs of keeping children in care in children's homes .These amount to nearly £2000 per week per child in state homes ,and up to £7000 per child per week is paid out of taxpayer's money to enrich the owners of private homes ( I "crossed swords" with one such wealthy owner who was a member of the very same Council that placed the children in his school in Kent !)An average of 60 vulnerable children die prematurely every year when in the "tender care " of these hugely expensive and profitable establishments !! .On the other hand foster parents can be paid as much as £400 per week per child (official figures for Slough !) A foster parent in Slough taking on 5 children can live pretty well on £2000 per week compared to birth families who would be lucky to get much more than 10% of this figure.Many such foster parents naturally have little interest in encouraging parental contact or doing anything that might lead to the reuniting of children in their care with their natural parents ! One third of the present prison population consists of children who grew up in care; These unfortunates are the natural criminal products of the "crime academies" originated and supervised by Social Services when in fact their publicly supported plan was to "train as good citizens" those children whose parents they had "assessed" as unfit to keep their own offspring.

http://www.channel4.com/health/microsit ... s_in_care/


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 115600.stm

The former Minister for children admitted that local authorities were set "adoption targets" and it is a fact that many local authorities like Kent were awarded large monetary rewards (£21 million for hitting 10 out of 12 targets, adoption increase being target number one) via public service agreements. One result of all this has been to strongly motivate social workers to procure children suitable for adoption even if this means splitting up the very families they are meant to support and protect ! In answer to a parliamentary question the Minister for children admitted that 6643 children over a 10 year period had been adopted by force against the will of mothers pleading in court to keep their children;These case do NOT include any cases where step-parents were involved and exact adoption statistics are available from the following tables .

Contested Adoptions
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many contested adoptions have taken place in each of the last 10 years. [222035]

Mr. Lammy: I have been asked to reply.

21 Mar 2005 : Column 563W



The number of contested adoptions that have taken place in each of the last 10 years are contained in the following table.
Step-parents(9)
Other
Total
Contested Uncontested Contested Uncontested Contested Uncontested
1995 491 2,388 733 1,707 1,224 4,095
1996 362 2,384 518 1,700 880 4,084
1997 272 1,780 555 1,542 827 3,322
1998 237 1,556 477 1,377 714 2,933
1999 211 1,332 716 1,617 927 2,949
2000 167 1,193 651 1,992 818 3,185
2001 141 1,055 653 2,329 794 3,384
2002 109 827 725 2,212 834 3,039
2003 129 840 938 2,489 1,067 3,329
2004 104 767 677 2,583 781 3,350


(9) Step-parent adoption occurs where the step-parent applies to formally adopt the child or children of their spouse and assumes parental responsibility to the exclusion of the other birth parent. Contested step-parent adoption cases arise where the non-resident birth parent does not consent to the adoption



http://www.dfes.gov.uk/adoption/adoptio ... rief.shtml PARAS 26-28

More than half the adoptions "from care" in the UK are contested by parents vainly fighting to keep the children they love, but government research papers admit that the courts very rarely decide in favour of the birth parents. The same papers also admit that only too often the needs of the children are forgotten in the struggle to meet "adoption targets".

http://www.local.dtlr.gov.uk/research/b ... ion/07.htm

Once social services have decided a child should be taken into care or freed for adoption any resistance from the mother or father is considered as "non cooperation". Social workers then use just about any means, and often go to almost any lengths to win their case without regard to changing circumstances or anything else but achieving yet another court victory. Perhaps the worst effect of these changes has been to encourage social workers to perpetrate what I at any rate consider the appalling crime of taking new born babies away from mothers at birth!! Certanly adopters prefer to take babies rather than children making it much easier to hit adoption targets if enough babies are "collected" In practice any woman with a child already in care who dares to give birth again risks the arrival of a grim po-faced social worker who will callously take the baby away with a view to getting it adopted by strangers.

The judge in the family court will inevitably sweep away the mother's objections to any projected adoption on the grounds that "Her consent to the adoption is being unreasonably withheld !! " How any judge can say a mother is being "unreasonable " because she does not want her baby adopted by strangers is beyond me but that is what they do ! This practice was roundly condemned as "draconian" by the European Court Of Human Rights but the decision came too late for the distraught mother whose child had already been adopted by strangers.This happens regularly even when the new birth happens several years later than the original order and when circumstances have often changed for the better but are rarely taken into consideration .This typically happened in the case of P C and S v United Kingdom

http://www.nkmr.org/english/p_c_and_s_v ... erdict.htm
(see paragraphs 133,137,and 138)

PARAGRAPH 133. " The Court concludes that the draconian step of removing S. from her mother shortly after birth was not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and that it cannot be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society for the purpose of safeguarding S. There has therefore been, in that respect, a breach of the applicant parents' rights under Article 8 of the Convention. "

These unfortunate mothers are in effect turned into baby making machines to meet the "adoption targets" whilst older children often languish in "special childrens homes" where they are frequently subjected to the most horrific abuse by the paedophiles who so eagerly seek and obtain employment in such places. Typical recent examples of widespread abuse in "children's homes" or false accusations of mass parental abuse occurred in Leicestershire, Staffordshire, Wales, Cheshire, Merseyside, Hackney, Islington, Orkney, Cleveland, Rochdale, Bishop's Auckland, and Ayrshire.

http://www.fathercare.org/cafcass05.htm

http://www.msbp.com/secretcourts.htm

http://www.justiceinfamilylaw.co.uk/Hodge.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... kids18.xml

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0, 6903, 1130638, 00.html

http://www.freedomtocare.org/page124.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/643832.stm/


Urgent reform is needed to abolish the secrecy of family courts,and to allow parents to opt for the case to be decided by a JURY,(LESS LIKELY TO RUBBER STAMP DEMANDS OF SOCIAL SERVICES!) . It is essential that we stop the taking of children by social services unless they are found to have suffered severe physical damage such as broken bones, extensive cigarette burns, malnutrition, repeatedly untreated serious illness, drug, alcohol, or sexual abuse with complicity of the parents. Hearsay evidence should not be admissible as when witnesses do not come to court themselves they cannot be cross examined. Some of the written statements of social workers and their experts, and worse still the videos made by children under pressure to say what they are told, often contain the most outrageous exaggerations and untruths yet they have to pass completely unchallenged in the absence of the witnesses themselves. Lastly and perhaps most important of all; clearly the sort of desperate mother who goes weeping to court to try and keep her children does not usually abuse or tolerate abuse of her children so there should be a presumption of innocence in that respect unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Poverty is often equated with neglect and over a 4 year period 440 children have been taken from loving parents for no other reason than the unfortunate fact that these parents had a "low income"!



Social Services :- Myths and Realities.
To whoever needs the information needed to challenge social services

Myth 1: "family court secrecy protects the identity of the children"

Reality: In fact social services advertise these same children for adoption on many websites such as www.ukkids.info and in magazines such as 'adoption UK' giving first names, photographs, birth dates and characteristics. Essex council has also featured a complete judgement concerning the children featured in the Mail on their website for all to see. In other words the Councils can break secrecy but parents risk prison if they do the same.
What the secrecy does do effectively is to stop aggrieved parents going to the press or revealing their names (like rape victims can do if they wish). The courts also often issue gagging orders stopping all discussion as indeed they did to Barry Aspinell even though he was an Essex Councillor trying to help a constituent.


Myth 2: Social workers pathetically repeat "damned if we do and damned if we don't " as an excuse for their actions.

Reality: They get damned because they avoid the violent type of parents and carers who torture their children as they are afraid for their own safety and feel damaged children might be hard to foster or adopt, and they therefore prefer to take the easier option of targeting happy healthy children whose mothers have low income or low IQs (as pointed out by the Daily Mail and the DailyTelegraph). Rather like some police who prefer to target motorists with a defective rear light rather than go after armed robbers.Social workers often point to the large numbers of children in voluntary care but do not mention that many of these were given up to care because parents were promised that if they cooperated by agreeing to this the children would be returned in 2 or 3 months.Of course this promise is too often broken . Parents are often horrified to see these same children advertised for adoption,(often when subject only to interim care orders and before the court has made any decision on their futures) When these same parents lose their children for good to the "adoption industry" they feel betrayed both by social workers and their own lawyers who have inevitably advised these parents to cooperate with social services when they affirm that "temporary care" is the best option .


Myth 3: Social workers, judges, foster carers and heads of special schools all do what they can to reunite children with their parents.

Reality: In 2000, Tony Blair called for a 40% increase in adoptions. Margaret Hodge fixed targets for local authorities giving beacon status and stars and even large financial rewards (Kent got £21 million pounds for hitting 10 out of 12 targets under a public service agreement) to those councils who were successful. Most social workers are therefore motivated to take children into care with a view to adoption to meet their targets. Government research papers have publicly confirmed this. Judges have admitted in court that it is safer to "go along with social services" rather than take any risks and that is why parents almost never win their children back.
As for foster parents who are lucky enough to live in Slough, they get a tax free allowance of £400 per week per child so a fosterer with 3 or 4 children is very well off indeed and is not likely to encourage the children to return home.
Private special schools according to channel 4 charge the council up to £7000 per week per child so they too prefer to keep the status quo.


Myth 4 "The welfare of the children is paramount"

Reality: This phrase of course does not say who is to decide what the best interests of the children are. Social workers trying to meet their targets soon translate this principle into "the children's welfare is best served if we win our case" and they try to win at all costs. Judges, as I have said freely admit that they take the safe route of "going along with social services" when their evidence conflicts with that of the parents. Mothers who come weeping into court to try and recover their children are not usually the type of person who would abuse or neglect their children. They should therefore usually win and get their children returned but they nearly always lose. Even worse CONTACT between mothers and children is gradually reduced(and used as a weapon if mothers are "difficult"),phone calls are forbidden and grandparents,aunts,and uncles are frequently stopped completely from any form of contact.Criminals actually in prison are allowed phone calls and family visits but this is very often denied to parents and grandparents seeking contact with children in care or worse still "on track for adoption"


Myth 5: The British legal system is widely admired through the world and the family courts are fair and highly respected in other countries.

Reality: The European court of human rights in the case of P, C, and S, vs United Kingdom, condemned as draconian the action of the UK family court when they followed their usual custom of taking a baby from the mother at birth because on a previous occasion one of her children had been taken into care many years earlier. The UK was fined but the child was already adopted. The essential difference between British social workers and those in Latin countries for example is that in France, Italy or Spain children are only removed from their parents if they have suffered severe physical harm. In the UK however children are taken not because they have actually suffered physical harm but rather some very ill defined sort of "emotional harm" or more often because so called "experts" (using a crystal ball?) decide that there is a risk that children might suffer "physical "or far more often "emotional "harm at some date in the future.
It is impossible for parents to prove that their children will not suffer emotional harm in the future when these experts swear to the contrary so the unfortunate parents nearly always lose.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/adoption/adoptio ... final1.pdf (see page12)

http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/p4p/st ... ren_ss.htm

THE GOLDEN RULES!!

Finally, do please remember the golden rules :-

1:- Never contact social services for help or advice

2:- Never believe their promises unless they are written down and signed.Always be pleasant and polite to social workers but never do what they say !

3:- Never sign any documents they present to you.

4:-Never, never agree to let your children go into foster care (especially if they say it is temporary)

5:-Never answer questions at case meetings or assessments with more than 5 or 6 words (they write down anything unhelpful you may let slip)

6:-Protect yourself against social workers barging uninvited into your home by fitting a small chain inside your front door.This means that if you do not unlatch the chain when you see who is calling that person would have to push the door hard enough to break the chain which would be a "forced entry "and a criminal offence if committed without an order of the court specifically allowing entry by force .Unless they have good reason to believe someone in the house is in danger of severe physical harm police also would have to show you a warrant before breaking the chain . Usually they will not have one and would have to convince a judge that a serious crime had been or was about to be committed before one was granted.

7:-If social services request a look at your medical records (probably to try and find something to discredit you) ALWAYS write to any doctor or psychiatrist that has seen you saying"I respectfully request you to keep all my medical notes strictly confidential as I intend to take legal proceedings against social services and any other person who might obtain my medical details without my express authorisation".

If you need further help or advice contact me at ianjosephs@wanadoo.fr Do also please read through the other sections in this site when you can spare the time. You may well find the other pages and links in this site helpful and sometimes even amusing !




THANK YOU FOR YOU FOR VISITING MY SITE !! GOOD LUCK TO ALL PARENTS !




Forced Adoption: www.forced-adoption.com - Introduction - Reforms - Get Your Children Back - Hodge Speaks! - Social Workers Prison - Forced Adoption Case Scenarios - Forced Adoption Forum - Child Snatchers


Top | Home | Contact | Search | Site Map | Forum | Links | Copyright © 2005
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:06 pm

Josie again...I'm still reading through all this myself!!!
What do you guys think of this?
You know, it has a real, ring of truth to me...what do you think?


Myth 4 "The welfare of the children is paramount"

Reality: This phrase of course does not say who is to decide what the best interests of the children are. Social workers trying to meet their targets soon translate this principle into "the children's welfare is best served if we win our case" and they try to win at all costs. Judges, as I have said freely admit that they take the safe route of "going along with social services" when their evidence conflicts with that of the parents. Mothers who come weeping into court to try and recover their children are not usually the type of person who would abuse or neglect their children. They should therefore usually win and get their children returned but they nearly always lose. Even worse CONTACT between mothers and children is gradually reduced(and used as a weapon if mothers are "difficult"),phone calls are forbidden and grandparents,aunts,and uncles are frequently stopped completely from any form of contact.Criminals actually in prison are allowed phone calls and family visits but this is very often denied to parents and grandparents seeking contact with children in care or worse still "on track for adoption"
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:19 pm

More reading matter, if you are interested.
Good to think it all through and question what is going on...forgive me, I really don't know my stuff....but these are real life experiences, from real peoples perspectives...I guess they deserve to be heard, surely social services shouldn't have the entire stage to themselves?

Josie


The outrageous case of Samantha Walsh and social services

The background facts are as follows:

Samantha has had 4 children: Christian now aged 5, Charlie now 3 and a half, Jorgie now 2 and Reily now aged 1.
Jorgie and Reily were taken for adoption within a few hours of their birth despite the fact that their mother Samantha who is now 24 has never been accused of abusing or neglecting any of her children.
Neither she nor her children have ever needed to go to hospital since birth, she has never had problems with alcohol or drugs, she has no criminal convictions, she has no learning difficulties and is in fact brighter and more articulate than average.
Her mistake was that when she was pregnant with Jorgie, her third child, she split from her partner who was the father also of Christian and Charlie, and was rather worried about how she could cope as a single mother.
She contacted social services just to inquire about the possibility of giving the unborn child for adoption when she was about 6 months pregnant and a week or two later said that she had changed her mind and did not wish to proceed farther.
Social services were furious that this adoption was escaping them and said it was too late to change their mind even though she had signed absolutely nothing.
They accused her of having a violent relationship with the partner who had left her and it is true that police had been called twice because of loud shouting and arguments but there was nothing physical and neither party ever injured the other in any way.
Using this as an excuse, they removed Jorgie at birth and later removed Charlie who was staying with Samantha's mother Philomena on the grounds that although she is only 46 and suffers from mild arthritis they said she would not be capable of looking after Charlie and Samantha might cause him to suffer future emotional abuse if she was left in contact.
Christian was quickly sent to live with Sabrina, Samantha's sister, and although the social services lost their case early this year when social services tried to remove him, social services appealed and lost again last month.
Such were their vindictive efforts to crush this family. Samantha, her sister Sabrina and her mother Philomena all live very near each other in Sydenham, London, in separate apartments, but are very close and supportive of each other.
Reily was born just over 1 year ago and was again snatched just after birth by a social worker who threatened to call the police if Samantha resisted and as she was in a weakened state after the birth she remained in hospital for 2 more days.
She was not notified that there was a court hearing when Reily was put into care with a view to adoption and when she finally got back into court she was told she would have to be assessed.
No assessment was made by social services before the next hearing 4 months later and social services explained to the court that they had no funds to do this.
The judge therefore said that he could not take any chances even if it was unfair and unjust and freed Reily for adoption.
At no time has Samantha received any written notification of any kind from the court as to what would happen to any of her children.
has been given no judgements, no opportunities to say goodbye, no written authorities for their removal, no copies of any care orders, and she feels naturally that her children have been unjustly kidnapped and hopes that something can be done.
Christian who is now 5 and lives with Sabrina, her sister is terrified when someone knocks at the door as he thinks that the social workers that kidnapped his 3 brothers are coming for him.
This is the only case among the many in which I have been involved where two babies have successfully been taken at birth from an intelligent mother who has never been accused of harming or neglecting any of her children, who has no criminal conviction and who has no problems with drink or drugs.
The European court of human rights has already condemned the UK for moving babies at birth from mothers without due cause as draconian (case p,c, and s verses United Kingdom).
Even if there are some facts which I do not know about, removing babies at birth from a mother that has never harmed them or any other children is such an extreme measure that in my view it can never be justified.
I have spoken at length to Samantha, her mother and her sister, and their stories have stood up under quite extensive examination.

I hope somebody can publicise the facts of this outrageous case.

Ian Josephs
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:34 pm

Ok Piglet,
But just remember, don't lose it with these guys.
They can be dangerous.
Keep cool, make a game play...be sooooo sussed.
Grovel if you have to...because you are not dealing with unbiased professionals.
Do you understand that?
Be careful..do not confront them...they will be defensive.
Get real, real smart. Know them. Read and learn, in order to break you from feeling guilt, unworthiness and so on.
But, take your time...and get smart.
Don't get hurt my dear. Please.
I don't want to stir anyone up to act with indiscretion. But, I think we all need to know, what the system is like...you see?
Piglet...I don't know your current emotional condition, I can only guess what you are going through. I have been through pain and grief too...but rather than act on those feelings, I work on those feelings and then act when my mind is clear about my objectives.
Just take care...it seems to me that your situation is so difficult.
I really feel for you,
Josie
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:11 pm

(((( hey))))

You know something? A friend of mine, who was and is married, with the perfect career and life and husband and everything....planned her first pregnancy.
This was some 20 odd years ago. She withdrew from people after the birth, and as I wasn't a close, close friend.. I didn't take much notice.
Years later, we became very close...and she spoke to me of her post-natal depression.
For at least one year, she was unable to accept or bond with her baby.
She had help. Help from doctors and therapists to help her get her head sorted out and to help her move out of this dreadful depression and disassociation that she felt with life.
Because she was married and ''respectably'' conformed to life....no-one would have suggested that she should have her baby adopted.
Her husband is a successful business man. They have a nice house.
She felt like running away from her baby...she looked at her baby daily and felt nothing. She got help. People recognised that she needed help.
She is a great Mother, her son is a well adjusted citizen. But more importantly, he is with his kin.

Your situation placed left you in an unbelievably vunerable place.
Your situation may have been no different to my friends...only that you came to the notice of social services....and in doing so..the whole scenario changed.

It's hard to take. But never, ever feel guilty. It was your circumstances that led to your little girl being adopted...truly.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:12 pm

(((( hey))))

You know something? A friend of mine, who was and is married, with the perfect career and life and husband and everything....planned her first pregnancy.
This was some 20 odd years ago. She withdrew from people after the birth, and as I wasn't a close, close friend.. I didn't take much notice.
Years later, we became very close...and she spoke to me of her post-natal depression.
For at least one year, she was unable to accept or bond with her baby.
She had help. Help from doctors and therapists to help her get her head sorted out and to help her move out of this dreadful depression and disassociation that she felt with life.
Because she was married and ''respectably'' conformed to life....no-one would have suggested that she should have her baby adopted.
Her husband is a successful business man. They have a nice house.
She felt like running away from her baby...she looked at her baby daily and felt nothing. She got help. People recognised that she needed help.
She is a great Mother, her son is a well adjusted citizen. But more importantly, he is with his kin.

Your situation placed left you in an unbelievably vunerable place.
Your situation may have been no different to my friends...only that you came to the notice of social services....and in doing so..the whole scenario changed.

It's hard to take. But never, ever feel guilty. It was your circumstances that led to your little girl being adopted...truly.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:22 pm

Apologies to everyone for my posts which I seem to duplicate and not place under a log-in name.
Sorry. I'll try to sort it out.

Josie
Guest
 

Postby Josie » Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:21 pm

Bumpity Bump Bump
Josie
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:14 am


Return to Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron