ID=8&fileName=\\ey\\SC\\SC_SC060131_20060502.pdf

 

----------------- --------------

Here at last is PROOF that all concerned in "child protection" are receiving vast sums of money for work that can at best be described as "destructive" and at worst "criminal"......

1: Fosterers typically £400/ week per child!
2: Special children's homes typically £7,000/ week per child!
3: Lawyers and court costs typically £500,000 per case!
4: Experts typically £28,000 for a simple report!
5: Adoption agencies make £millions (£18,000/placement)
6: Local authorities get £millions hitting adoption targets! 

 

1: BALLOONS AND FAMILY FUN TO PROMOTE FOSTERING

Hundreds of balloons will be released from Slough town centre to mark a special event to launch Slough’s new fostering Allowance Scheme.

Saturday, July 2 will encourage more people to consider becoming foster parents to local children and see the launch of a new fostering allowance of £400 per week.

Between noon and 4pm, the Town Square will be bustling with activities including face painting and balloon modelling. Football fans should be sure to bring a camera as a David Beckham look-a-like will be ready to pose for photos.

Janet Tomlinson, head of education and children’s services at Slough Borough Council, will make a short speech at 1pm before the balloon release.

Team members from Slough’s Family Placement Services will be giving out fostering information including the fostering freephone number, car stickers, bookmarks, keyrings, wristbands and balloons.

Janet Tomlinson said: "Fostering offers great challenges and great rewards. Even if you’ve never thought about it before, why not come down on July 2 to find out more?"

The freephone fostering number is 0800 073 0291.

----------

2. DISPATCHES: PROFITING FROM KIDS IN CARE

Channel 4, Thursday 25 November, 9pm

In 2004, caring for Britain's most vulnerable children is a multi- million pound industry. Children in care cost the taxpayer over £830 million pounds a year. That's an average of £2,500 per child, per week - more than four times what it would cost to send a child to Eton. Yet many homes are failing to provide children with even a basic standard of care.

In this programme, Dispatches goes undercover to investigate the consequences of the increased privatisation of residential children's homes. The investigation reveals how homes are run by private businessmen charging social services departments enormous and unethical mark-ups on services - many of which aren't even provided. Fees of £7,000 a week are not unusual yet Dispatches finds private children's homes which are failing the children in many respects. Homes often use untrained, and sometimes unvetted, agency staff to look after some of the UK's most at risk youngsters - many of whom have been the victims of abuse, prostitution and drugs.

The current system is failing thousands of children a year. According to a recent report, three in five kids leave care with no qualifications at all. One in five will be homeless after two years and one in three of the current prison population has previously been in care. Tragically, some don't make it at all, with approximately 60 youngsters dying in children's homes every year.

Information, advice and support for people who are in care, or have been in the past, can be found by checking out the following organisations and websites.

----------

3: COUNCIL MUST PAY £500,000 FOR WRONGLY TAKING GIRL INTO CARE
Clare Dyer, legal editor
The Guardian, Friday March 17 2006
The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Thursday March 23 2006

(The headline for the article below was misleading. As the story made clear, the £500,000 was the total cost to public funds. The council was ordered to pay the parents £200,000 legal aid costs and will have to meet its own costs. The child would also have been represented and payment of those costs will be met from public funds).

A couple had their family life torn apart when social workers wrongly took their nine-year-old daughter into emergency care without good reason and kept her from her parents for 14 months, a high court judge said yesterday.

Mr Justice McFarlane castigated the social workers for "multiple failings" and criticised the family court magistrates who had granted the emergency order. The costs of the case, payable from public funds, were £500,000, including the parents' legal aid costs of £200,000, which the judge ordered the local council to pay. The judge took the unusual step of making his judgment public after a hearing behind closed doors, although the family, the local authority and the magistrates court are all unnamed.

He laid down guidelines to prevent future miscarriages of justice which are certain to lead social services departments and magistrates courts to re-examine their practices. He said it gave him "absolutely no pleasure to have to record the multiple failings of the local authority in this case".

But to do so was "necessary not only in order to come to a conclusion on the issues in this case, but also in order that lessons may be learned for the future".

He said the girl's mother had sought the help of social services and child health services because her daughter, the couple's only child, was displaying some "modest behavioural difficulties".

Mother and daughter had been referred to the child guidance unit for psychotherapy and the girl had been put on the local child protection register.

The notes of a social services planning meeting read: "No neglect issues. Home and care good. Mother and child have good relationship. Detrimental to move."

But social workers suspected it was a case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy - now called fabricated or induced illness (FII) -a rare form of child abuse in which a mother or carer makes a child ill or fakes illness to get attention. At the end of a case conference on the girl in November 2004, social services received a phone call from a nurse at the local hospital.

They were told that the mother had taken the girl there with stomach pains and was asking to see a doctor after the nurse found nothing wrong. Within hours and without any information from the doctor, social workers were at the magistrates court seeking an emergency protection order allowing the girl to be taken from her parents immediately.

They acted without telling the parents and without seeking any medical opinion to try to confirm their suspicions. The girl had had medical treatment before and no doctor had suggested fabricated illness.

The council's actions were described by the mother's counsel as "outrageous" and "inexcusable" leading, as it did, to "the destruction of this family's ordinary life".

Those descriptions "do not, in my view, overstate the quality of what took place on that day", the judge said. The social services team leader, who had no detailed knowledge of the case, made 13 assertions to the magistrates, of which every one was "misleading or incomplete or wrong".

He ruled that the council had no case to take the girl into care and made her a ward of court "to facilitate the child's return home".

----------

4: THE EXPERT AS JUDGE AND JURY
After a host of miscarriages of justice based on discredited expert witnesses, calls are growing for radical reform of their use in court, writes Lois Rogers
The Sunday Times, Nov 18 2007

Yet another woman was sent to prison last week, following expert evidence that she had shaken to death a baby in her care. Keran Henderson, a 42-year-old childminder, was said to have killed 11- month-old Maeve Sheppard, by shaking her so violently she was left blind and brain-damaged. The infant died in hospital a few days later.

The case has grim echoes of those of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel, all of whom were accused of killing their children only to be found innocent later. Clark, a solicitor, who was released from prison after serving three years, died last March as a result of psychological trauma and alcoholism caused by her ordeal.

At the Court of Appeal, two days after the judgment on Henderson, a retrial was ordered in the case of Barry George, the loner convicted of killing the television personality Jill Dando in 1999 with a single shot to the head. Expert testimony as to the significance of a particle of gunshot matter in his pocket is being challenged.

There has also been the recent conviction of the true killer of schoolgirl Lesley Molseed, 32 years after the event – and after Stefan Kiszko had served 16 years for the sexually motivated killing, even though medical evidence could have pointed out his infertility proved his innocence. Once again the review of the evidence threw a spotlight on the role of expert witnesses, whose testimony is often crucial in criminal cases but can be unreliable.

Our blind faith in scientific opinion makes us reluctant to question pronouncements by “experts”, but while the law requires everyone from plumbers to nurses to be trained, registered and checked, there is no such requirement for witnesses who may be pronouncing on matters of life and death in court.

A study by senior barrister Penny Cooper of City University in London, has shown that the majority of lawyers and judges do not bother to check the qualifications of experts they approach to bolster an aspect of their case. She also found a substantial number of the expert witnesses had undergone no training to understand their legal duty.

The disquiet this arouses has led to a clamour for legislation to require expert witnesses to be regulated. But how to do that without calling into question thousands of court decisions will not be an easy task.

There is already acute unease over the proliferation of parents convicted of causing cot deaths, shaking babies to death, or harming them by creating symptoms of fictitious illness.

Henderson, for instance, a mother of two herself, a long-term childminder and stalwart volunteer of her local Beaver Scout group, was sentenced to three years in prison for shaking baby Maeve so violently that she was left with fatal brain damage, despite the fact there was no evidence of any “grip marks” on the child, which would normally be expected to accompany such an action.

Her husband, a former police officer, has said she will appeal and hopes to create a campaign similar to that run by Sally Clark’s family, to try to prove his wife’s innocence.

Many character witnesses spoke up for Henderson in court and the family has dozens of supporters in their home village of Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire.

Some even believe her prosecution was only pursued because of the successful appeal by Roy Meadow, the expert paediatrician whose evidence led to the conviction of Sally Clark.

Following the Clark case, in which Meadow quoted a completely erroneous statistic suggesting the chances of Clark’s babies having died naturally were one in 73m, he was struck off by the General Medical Council (GMC) for misconduct. The Court of Appeal agreed he had acted in good faith.

In the meantime, Alan Williams, the Home Office pathologist who conducted post-mortems on Clark’s two infant sons, was less lucky. His appeal against a GMC finding of serious professional misconduct was rejected. Williams was accused of tailoring his diagnoses of the nature of the babies’ deaths to fit the police case against Clark.

The GMC is currently hearing a claim of gross professional misconduct against paediatrician Dr David Southall. The council has received evidence alleging that Southall falsified his curriculum vitae.

Southall’s evidence has figured highly in at least 50 criminal cases and possibly hundreds of family court cases held in secret, which have led to children being removed from their parents.

Questions of how frequently babies really are shaken to death, and indeed if it is possible to do so, have divided medical opinion for some years. There have, however, been up to 200 convictions annually for related forms of violence against babies and young children.

After Clark, Cannings and Patel, another bizarre case was overturned. Ian and Angela Gay, who had been convicted of poisoning their three-year-old adopted son with salt, were cleared when it was revealed the boy was suffering from a rare, and fatal, congenital abnormality.

Recently, the attorney-general ordered a review of almost 300 criminal convictions and 30,000 family court proceedings where children were taken into care. Only four were referred to the Court of Appeal. This, according to critics, was a function of the way the review was done, with authorities being asked to review their own decisions.

Social workers say the crusade to root out dangerous adults is to some extent a reaction to a previous era of regular criticism of their profession when children were left to die at the hands of their parents. Although some acknowledge the pendulum may now have swung too far, others are furious: “Do people think we spend all our time trying to break up families for no good reason?” said John Coughlan, a joint-president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. “In comparison with the volume of cases, the number of errors is tiny. We never rely on expert witnesses alone.”

Others argue that the opinion of expert witnesses is often the decisive factor. And as we have seen most recently with Barry George, it is not just child murder cases that have turned on such evidence.

Last year the Home Office took the unprecedented step of holding a disciplinary tribunal against Michael Heath, one of its most senior forensic pathologists: 20 charges against him were upheld. One man was subsequently cleared of murder, and numerous other convictions have been called into question.

A spate of other convictions came from evidence supplied by Paula Lannas, another Home Office forensic specialist who was the subject of a long-delayed disciplinary hearing that collapsed because those investigating her said they had a conflict of interest. Not only has Lannas been deprived of an opportunity to clear her name, but dozens of prisoners who claim they were victims of her errors have been unable to get the evidence reviewed.

Police forensic scientist Peter Ablett, who is now chief executive of the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, points out there are only three ways to prove a crime: a reliable eyewitness, a confession, or forensics. The advent of DNA technology and other advances in recent years has brought increasing reliance on forensics, yet only about 3,000 of the estimated 8,000 expert witnesses operating are members of the council and signed up to its code of practice.

He said many of those who are not are unaware that their duty is to give impartial evidence to the court, not to bolster the case of their paymaster.

City University’s Cooper, who is also a governor of the Expert Witness Institute, was concerned to discover during her research that not only have one in five experts undergone no training to understand this duty, but one in 10 was so arrogant they said they saw no need for it. “There should be a requirement for them to be trained, and there should be rules requiring judges and lawyers to consider their credentials before accepting them as expert witnesses,” she said.

Such a provision cannot come soon enough.

A review is still going on of 700 cases in which bogus forensic scientist Gene Morrison gave evidence. Morrison, 48, from Manchester who was sentenced to five years for fraud in February, admitted he pretended to be an expert witness and bought his qualifications on the internet because it “seemed easier” than getting real ones.

For many of the genuinely qualified experts, legal work isa lucrative sideline, and if they are perceived to be able to “tailor” their evidence convincingly, the commissions keep flowing in. John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning about the misuse of medical evidence, says fees for a basic written opinion, based on reading through existing files, start at £4,000. If the expert concludes there is a case to answer, they attract court attendance fees as well.

“I have known experts get as much as £28,000 for one report,” said Hemming, who is lobbying for experts to be required to produce the scientific publications on which their opinion is based: “Unless we start using evidence-based evidence in court, we will get nowhere.”

----------

5: FIRMS CASH IN ON SHORTAGE OF FOSTER HOMES
Published: Sunday, 2 October, 2005, Evening Standard.

LONDON: Private agencies are making millions of pounds out of a critical shortage of foster homes for children. Firms are charging councils on average £800 per child per week, an EVENING STANDARD investigation revealed.

This amounts to £41,600 a year to find suitable homes for the most vulnerable children in society.

One head of social services said: “It is cheaper to send the children to Eton.”

London councils are so desperate to hold on to their foster parents that two are offering them free loft conversions - worth up to £30,000 - so they can take in more children. Britain’s largest independent agency Foster Care Associates had a £56mn turnover in 2003, the last year for which accounts are available.

Its eight directors - seven of them social workers who set up the company 10 years ago - paid themselves total fees of more than £2.2mn as well as sharing pre-tax profits of almost £900,000.

The directors awarded themselves on average £285,000 each - about 10 times the annual salary of a social worker.

There is an estimated shortage of 10,000 foster carers across the UK. This has driven up the prices charged by the 150 or so independent agencies.

It costs councils between £300 and £400 a week to place children with their own approved foster carers but they cannot meet the demand and have to turn to outside agencies. More difficult children can cost as much as £1,500 per week to place in foster homes.

The problem is especially acute in London, where out of 11,500 fostered children up to one-third are found homes through independent agencies. Many of them are ‘dumped’ in outlying towns around the capital. A total of 60,000 children are fostered nationally.

A spokesman at the department for education said: “We know there are too many children being placed outside of authorities. We commissioned a report last year looking at how we can reduce that number.”

Out of the 11,500 fostered children in London, half of them are teenagers, about 3,000 aged eight to 12 and 2,500 aged under eight.

Children are typically being sent from London boroughs to Kent, miles from their schools and friends. Some 330 problem children from London are being fostered in the Margate area.

This has prompted the Kent child protection committee to compile a report, sent to ministers, warning the town is now at a ‘tipping point’ and branding the situation ‘explosive’.

Paul Fallon, director of social services at Barnet council and spokesman for all London’s social services directors, said: “Every penny we spend on one child is a penny we can’t spend on another child. If I place a child with Barnet it is £400. But it costs me about double that to place a child in an independent placement.

“It is a sellers’ market and that will impact on prices. We are stuck. It is cheaper to send children to Eton.”

He estimated that in Barnet about 30 to 40 children - about 10% of the number needing foster care - are unaccompanied child refugees. They have helped to swell numbers of children needing placements, putting added pressure on social services.

A spokeswoman for Richmond council, where private places at £900 cost three times as much as council places, said: “In emergencies we will negotiate with another borough for a temporary foster place, but that’s very rare.”

The crisis has prompted Barnet council and Hammersmith and Fulham to offer grants of up to £30,000 to foster parents to build loft conversions to house more children. A spokeswoman for Hammersmith and Fulham said the outlay would pay itself back within one to two years even if it creates just one extra fostering place.

Defenders of private agencies point out councils often do not factor hidden staffing costs - such as administration and on-call social workers - into their weekly fees. Private agencies also point out they are often called upon to find placements for the most difficult children. They point out they also provide round-the-clock social worker support as well as educational support and therapy. Not all agencies are profit-making with fostering services carried out by charities such as Barnardo’s and NCH.

Marcelle Ibbetson, service development manager at NCH, which also typically charges £800 a week, said: “We don’t think local authorities have properly costed the real cost of foster care. Their behind the scenes costs are hidden. What we provide is private placements at the specialist end of the market.”

None of the directors of Foster Care Associates was available for comment. But in an interview last year Sally Melbourne, FCA’s director for the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire region, said: “The majority of the fee we charge local authorities goes to the carer and on the welfare of the child. We are a business but we make very little profit, last year we made 5% profit.”

A spokesman for the company added: “The company specialises in children that are difficult to place. That is not necessarily behaviourally difficult children but it could be kids with five siblings that need to be kept together or from the ethnic minorities that needs to be placed in their own community. We offer a complete support structure including therapy and education, which is why the costing may look more expensive.” – LONDON - EVENING STANDARD.

----------

6: Written Parliamentary answers

 So many times have the "SS" denied the existence of adoption targets it is worth repeating again that they did exist and that local authorities greatly profited from them !
Monday, 3 September 2007
Children, Schools and Families
Adoption: StandardsAll Written Answers on 3 Sep 2007

Tim Loughton MP (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families which local authorities have received payments from central Government for achieving adoption target levels; and how much each received in each of the last three years.

John Healey (Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government)
I have been asked to reply.
30 local authorities have been rewarded for successfully achieving adoption targets in their local public service agreements (LPSA). The better outcomes and amount of 'performance reward grant' (PRG) each has received over the three years 2004/05 to 2006/07 in relation to their performance in these targets is set out in the following table. In addition, 13 local authorities did not achieve the adoption targets in their local PSA and hence received no PRG for this target. One local authority is still to make a claim

Local PSAs—which are negotiated between local authorities and central Government policy departments, facilitated by the DCLG—have helped to incentivise local authorities and partners to provide better public services to their citizens around priorities for improvement locally. Evaluation shows they have been successful in doing this, with real benefits in improved outcomes for local people and communities.

Local PSA adoption and placement targets: payments made to date under local PSAs
Local authority Amount of 'reward grant' paid (£)
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council 210,173.00
Blackburn with Darwen 307,367.00
Bristol City Council 307,512.00
Buckinghamshire County Council 526,958.00
Bromley (LB) 499,440.00
Camden (LB) 318,916.50
Cheshire County Council 685,134.00
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 578,333.00
Durham County Council 502,675.00
Enfield (LB) 244,963.00
Essex County Council 2,469,200.00
Gloucestershire County Council 612,209.00
Greenwich (LB) 580,996.00
Halton Borough Council 153,938.00
Hampshire 1,675,619.00
Hounslow (LB) 165,019.00
Kensington and Chelsea (LB) 339,117.00
Kent County Council 2,156,583.00
Lewisham (LB) 602,854.00
Liverpool City Council 347,404.00
Luton Borough Council 400,027.00
Manchester City Council 984,877.00
Merton Borough Council 358,708.00
Northamptonshire County Council 1,119,115.00
Sheffield City Council 1,025,000.00
Southwark (LB) 435,242.00
St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 83,845.00
Wandsworth (LB) 387,627.00
Warwickshire County Council 231,061.00
York City Council 203,620.00

Back to Barristers 'exploiting misery' as fees in family law cases rise 25% in 5 years
Daily Mail Online
June 19th 2008

Barristers have been making millions of extra pounds from the misery of families and children caught up in the family courts, according to new figures released by ministers yesterday.

Fees paid out of taxpayer-funded legal aid to barristers in family court cases have gone up by almost a third in five years and have now reached nearly £100million a year, they showed.

And there have been big increases in claims by barristers for obscure special payments that provide 'uplift' and 'bolt-ons' to their basic charges.

Jack Straw's Ministry of Justice lifted a corner of the blanket of official secrecy that surrounds the family courts to disclose that barristers who appear in them can claim bonuses including bizarre 'court bundle payments'.

These give barristers extra money if there are more than 176 pages to their court papers and extra still if there are over 350 pages. Yet another court bundle payment is paid if a barrister carries over 700 pages of papers.

Court bundle payments alone meant taxpayers were charged an extra £8.6million by barristers last year.

-------------------------------

 

The Times on line
June 19th 2008

The Bar Council, which represents nearly 15,000 barristers in England and Wales, will announce its proposals in a paper before an all-party meeting of MPs tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Legal Services Commission, which runs the legal aid scheme, has just released figures to show how much barristers are earning from legal aid work.

Crispin Passmore, the commission’s policy director for civil legal aid, said that the sum spent on barristers’ fees since 2003-04 had risen from £71 million to nearly £100 million.

The number of barristers earning more than £100,000 from family legal aid work had gone up by 14 per cent in the 12 months between mid2005 and mid2006, he added.

“The average annual earnings from family legal aid work is £140,000 – and that doesn’t include any privately paid work they might do. So we are not talking about the minimum wage.”

 

----------------- --------------

 

Do we get value for money? Well this is what the BBC had to say!

Can children in care avoid prison?
Wednesday 15th MAY 2002

David Akinsanya was raised by the state and in a special BBC Two documentary he asks why so many kids leaving the care system end up in prison.

Government statistics show that 49 per cent of children in care go straight to prison. With 56,000 children in the British care system today, that means 28,000 are set to receive custodial sentences.

David Akinsanya believes the problem lies with the care system itself.

He says the care system is inflexible and does not offer appropriate care to young people.

Research found that 42 per cent of young prostitutes had been in care at some point

The "INDEPENDENT" 14 December 2006 

The Government's own research highlights how the care system is not simply a negligent parent but at times probably more dangerous than the family from which some children have been taken. A study commissioned by the Home Office has looked at the link between hard drug use, sex work and various vulnerability factors. The results are astonishing, if not heartbreaking.

Less than 1 per cent of the child population is looked after by the state, but the research found that 42 per cent of young women prostitutes interviewed had been in care at some point in their lives. "This is an extraordinary figure, which demonstrates that looked after children are very vulnerable to involvement in drug use and sexual abuse through prostitution," the report concluded.

---------------------

2 children in care die of neglect each week
The People, 22 June 2008
By David Collins

Children placed in care are three times more likely to die than others, a shock report has revealed.

In one year, 16 in 10,000 vulnerable youngsters died in care. The national death rate for children was five in every 10,000.

The study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families showed that 800 youngsters have died in care over the last ten years - an average of two a week.

Malnutrition and diseases were the main causes of death.

Last year 12,000 kids in care had no immunisations, 9,600 had no health check ups and 8,400 never saw a dentist.

By law children should get checks within two weeks of going into care. In some local authority areas, less than 50 per cent do.

A Children and Young Persons Bill, which should improve matters, goes before MPs tomorrow.

Tim Loughton, Shadow Minister for Children, said: "Despite the efforts of beleaguered social workers, the system is failing."

---------------------

Extract from the Telegraph:-

Official figures show that only six per cent of the 60,000 children in care gain five or more A* to C GCSEs and more than a third are not entered for a single GCSE.

Conviction rates for young people in care are three times the rate for other juveniles. One in four girls leaving care is pregnant or already a mother. A recent case which caused outrage involved a 12-year-old living in a children's home in Blackburn who became pregnant while working as a prostitute.

Dismal outcomes are the norm despite the £2.5 billion a year spent looking after them. It costs £100,000 a year to keep a child in a children's home, more than four times the fees at top private schools such as Eton or Winchester.

Fostering can cost up to £30,000 a year, compared with the £7,500 a year that state boarding schools charge parents for accommodation, with the £5,000 cost of education covered by the local authorities.

  Harriet Harman (Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs) Link to this | Hansard source My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which she has put to me in a written question, so I know what the answer is. Last year something like 200 people were sent to prison by the family courts, which happens in complete privacy and secrecy. The idea that people are sent to prison without any reports of the proceedings makes even more important the work that we are undertaking with the family courts, and with the important intervention of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, to open them up so that they act in the public interest while maintaining personal privacy.

Only in the SECRET family courts are punishments (losing their children to long term fostercare or worse still adoption by strangers) imposed on persons (parents) who have neither committed a crime nor even been accused of committing any crime!  THERE IS NO OTHER CASE IN UK LAW WHERE THIS  CAN HAPPEN!

--------------------

British justice: a family ruined
A chilling example of our secret State where a mother and child are forced into hiding
by Camilla Cavendish,The Times, February 21, 2008

Last autumn a small English congregation was rocked by the news that two of its parishioners had fled abroad. A 56-year-old man had helped his pregnant wife to flee from social workers, who had already taken her son into care and were threatening to seize their baby.

Most people had no idea why. For the process that led this couple to such a desperate act was entirely secret. The local authority had warned the mother not to talk to her friends or even her MP. The judge who heard the arguments from social services sat in secret. The open-minded social workers who had initially been assigned to sort out a custody battle between the woman and her previous husband were replaced by others who seemed determined to build a guilty case against her. That is how the secret State operates. A monumental injustice has been perpetrated in this quiet corner of England; our laws are being used to try to cover it up.

I will call this couple Hugh and Sarah. Neither they nor their families have ever been in trouble with the law, as far as I know. Sarah's only fault seems to have been to suffer through a violent and volatile first marriage, which produced a son. When the marriage ended, the boy was taken into temporary foster care for a few months - as a by-product of the marriage breakdown and against her will - while she “sorted her life out” and found them a new home. But even as she cleared every hurdle set by the court, social workers dreamt up new ones. The months dragged by. A psychologist said the boy was suffering terribly in care and was desperate to come home. Sarah's mother and sister, both respected professionals with good incomes, apparently offered to foster or adopt him. The local authority did not even deign to reply.

For a long time, Sarah and her family seem to have played along. At every new hearing they thought that common sense would prevail. But it didn't. The court appeared to blame her for not ending her marriage more quickly, which had put strain on the boy, while social workers seemed to insist that she now build a good relationship with the man she had left. Eventually, she came to believe that the local authority intended to have her son adopted. She also seems to have feared that they would take away her new baby, Hugh's baby, when it was born. One night in September they fled the country with the little boy. When Hugh returned a few days later, to keep his business going and his staff in jobs, he was arrested.

Many people would think this man a hero. Instead, he received a far longer sentence - 16 months for abduction - than many muggers. This kind of sentence might be justified, perhaps, to set an example to others. But the irony of this exemplary sentence is that no one was ever supposed to know the details. (I am treading a legal tightrope writing about it at all.) How could a secret sentence for a secret crime deter anyone?

Sarah's baby has now been born, in hiding. I am told that the language from social services has become hysterical. But if the State was genuinely concerned for these two children, it would have put “wanted” pictures up in every newspaper in Europe.

It won't do that, of course, because to name the woman and her children would be to tear a hole in the fabric of the secret State, a hole we could all see through. I would be able to tell you her side of the story, the child's side of the story. I would be able to tell you every vindictive twist of this saga. And the local authority knows perfectly well how it would look. So silence is maintained.

And very effective it is too. The impotence is the worst thing. The way that perfectly decent individuals are gagged and unable to defend themselves undermines a fundamental principle of British law. I have a court order on my desk that threatens all the main actors in this case with dire consequences if they talk about it to anyone.

Can that really be the way we run justice in a country that was the fount of the rule of law? At the heart of this story is a little boy who was wrenched from the mother he loves, bundled around in foster care and never told why, when she appears to have been perfectly capable of looking after him. When she had relatives who were perfectly capable of doing so. In the meantime, he was becoming more and more troubled and unhappy. To find safety and love, that little boy has had to leave England.

What does that say about our country? The public funds the judges, the courts, the social workers. It deserves to know what they do. That does not mean vilifying all social workers, or defending every parent. But it does mean ending the presumption of guilt that infects so many family court hearings. It does mean asking why certain local authorities seem unable to let go of children whose parents have resolved their difficulties. It does mean knowing how social workers could have got away with failing to return this particular boy, after his mother had met all the criteria set by a judge at the beginning. It is simply unacceptable that social services have put themselves above the law.

We need these people to be named, and to hear in their words what happened. We need to open up the family courts. We need to tear down the wall of secrecy that has forced a decent woman to live as a fugitive, to save her little boy from a life with strangers, used like a pawn in a game of vengeance. Even if the local authority were to drop its case, it is hard to see how Sarah could ever trust them enough to return. At home, for their God- fearing congregation, the question is simple: what justice can ever be done behind closed doors? And in whose name?

----------------------

Jailed: The man who helped his wife flee abroad as social workers threatened to take their baby
By FIONA BARTON, Daily Mail 7th Feb 2008

A father is in jail and his wife is in hiding abroad with her children after he helped them flee the country to escape social services, it emerged yesterday.

The businessman's wife was heavily pregnant with their first child - and was terrified the baby would be taken at birth by social workers - when he drove his family to Dover, and then on to Paris.

She had a second reason for fleeing - she believed her eight-year-old son from a previous marriage was to be adopted against her wishes.

Her 56-year-old husband was arrested on his return to Britain, and later jailed for 16 months for abducting the eight- year-old, known as Child S.

The boy's mother, who is a professional woman in her 40s but cannot be identified for legal reasons, has since given birth prematurely to a girl and is struggling to cope far from friends and family.

Her plight raises further disturbing questions about the secret family courts which only last week were in the spotlight when social workers illegally snatched a newborn baby from its mother.

Such cases are shrouded in the heaviest secrecy - with families threatened with jail if they discuss their fears that their children are being removed unjustly.

But the story of the father and his family in hiding can be revealed for the first time because he appealed in a criminal case - which can be reported - begging for his 16-month jail sentence to be reduced.

His plea to the High Court was dismissed and the father, who has never seen his baby daughter, was led away in tears.

A teacher friend of the father was also in tears.

The friend said: "This isn't justice. They are a law- abiding family with respect for the police, but putting him in prison for protecting his family makes the law an ass. What good does it serve?"

The three appeal judges were told yesterday how Child S's parents had separated in 2004 after a volatile and violent marriage.

The mother claims she was told the boy would be taken into temporary foster care until she "sorted her life out".

But when she asked for his return, social services refused.

After months of legal battles, a family court judge sided with the council's plan to put the boy up for enforced adoption. By this time, the mother was pregnant.

A friend said: "She was led to believe by social services she would have no chance of keeping the child she was carrying, which is outrageous. She was in despair."

According to papers before the appeal court, she then made contact with her son at school last September and whispered instructions to him through the playground fence.

In the early hours, Child S "crept out" of his foster home to meet his mother and stepfather and the escape plan was under way.

The mother left a note which claimed: "We had to go." The court was told that detectives believed the mother and children were in Spain or France.

Dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice Bennett acknowledged the "powerful emotions" involved, but said: "Such proceedings taken by a local authority must be respected by parents.

"Those who act must expect a prison sentence because a real punishment is called for and to deter others who might be subject to the same pressures."

The judge expressed his disbelief that the father did not know the whereabouts of his wife.

The father - who has adult children from a previous marriage - is being destroyed by prison, a friend said outside court.

She added: "He is absolutely shell-shocked by the actions of the courts. Basically, they have said you are not allowed to be human in your responses.

"What parent wouldn't act to stop their child being taken from them? He has aged ten years and gone grey with the worry of it all."

Free the 'Grandfather One'
Is it really in the public interest that a grandparent is jailed for not avoiding his grandson?
Camilla Cavendish, The Times, December 13, 2007

Two MPs have put down an early day motion in the House of Commons to bring attention to what they believe is a miscarriage of justice. It notes that a man named Charles Roy Taylor has been sent to prison for 20 months for being in contact with his stepgrandson. It “wonders if this is a good use of scarce prison resources; and calls for the Secretary of State for Justice to consider whether he should be released for Christmas”. Jack Straw no doubt has bigger things on his mind. And no story like this is ever as simple as it looks. But it deserves attention.

Charles Roy Taylor is a 71-year-old with a heart condition. He knew that a jail sentence was the penalty he might pay if he did not take steps to avoid his stepgrandson. But this seems desperately unfair. The teenager, whom we shall call John, has been in care since his mother died of an overdose. He has been phoning his grandparents and running away to see them for some time. In the end, social services became concerned that the grandparents were “undermining the care plan” by continuing to see John. It does not appear to be clear to the grandparents what the care plan is. But it does not seem to include them, even though they could presumably be John's first port of call when he leaves the care system at 18.

It is not the local authority's fault that this child had a difficult childhood. In taking responsibility for him, social workers were doing their best. Neither he nor his grandparents sound like the easiest people to deal with. But as in so many cases of this kind, bitterness between the family and the authorities appears to have escalated into a ludicrous situation, which simply cannot be in the best interests of the child.

After a great deal of argy-bargy that I cannot go into for legal reasons, Mr Taylor last year gave an undertaking not to communicate with John until he was 18. But asking a man not to pick up the phone to a child, not to take him in when he turns up at the front door, is a harsh demand. It is tantamount to asking him to deny that the child exists, when what that child may need most is attention.

In stalking cases, when Person A is ordered to avoid Person B, it is usually at the explicit request of Person B, who fears assault. In this case, Person B was apparently desperate to see his grandparents. He seems to see them as his best hope. So in whose interests was such an order? If he has broken his undertaking, Mr Taylor has surely been responding as humanely as most of us would. A jail sentence seems wholly disproportionate.

When I first learnt of this case I felt that there must be more to it. That perhaps the grandparents were suspected of abuse. I can find no evidence of any such allegation. Indeed, the authorities initially seemed happy to leave them in contact with John. What appears to have happened is that the exchanges between the family and social workers became increasingly bitter, all of whom no doubt believed themselves to be in the right.

The council cannot comment on individual cases. It will say only that “Mr Taylor was sentenced by the High Court after he breached a court order”. It cannot comment on John's treatment in care. John seems unhappy. He has apparently asked to be discharged. But his voice can only be heard within the system, a system he seems determined to rebel against.

There is a growing campaign on the internet to release Mr Taylor. This has two parts. The first is that a 20-month jail sentence is preposterous when the prisons are so overcrowded that dangerous criminals are being released early. The second is that Mr Taylor was allegedly committed to jail in a “secret court”. This seems unlikely. But it is an allegation that is made frequently. Legally, you cannot send someone to jail in a secret court. In practice, it is questionable whether a judge sitting in a family court from which press and public are excluded, who declares the court open for a few minutes to pronounce sentence, is really “open”.

This matters, because the view of the legal profession increasingly seems to be that the less we know the better. The justification for keeping family courts closed, despite the recommendations of the Commons Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, is to protect children's privacy. Yet this argument is no longer confined to the family courts. It is increasingly being trotted out in criminal cases too.

In the past month, one court has ruled that the defendants in a witchcraft trial, who were alleged to have done unspeakable things to children, could not be named in case this led to the identification of their victims. Another court banned publication of anything about a mother accused of poisoning her child with salt, in case the information affected her surviving child. The Times has recently succeeded in overturning yet another ruling, that a man who pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children could not be named in case his relatives might suffer. The Court of Appeal found that the man should be named, and that the attempts to restrict the proceedings were invalid.

The law must not become a secret process. Some lawyers seem convinced that the media want to identify vulnerable children, but it is always possible to write these stories without doing so. Seeing that justice is done is a fundamental part of law.

What is sad is that our elaborate system of child protection, which is designed to put children first, has sometimes become a way of avoiding accountability. The two MPs are right to ask whose interests Mr Taylor's jailing serves. Presumably, the last thing John wants is for his grandfather to be in jail. They are both victims of a system that asks us to take on trust that it knows best. But prison is surely the wrong place for Charles Roy Taylor.

-------------------------

How social workers took away our children for 11 months without a shred of evidence
By SUE REID, Daily Mail
9 May 2008

Enjoying the sunshine at a park near their home, the Aston family cling closely to each other as if to make sure they will never be prised apart again. Jodie, a bubbly ten-year-old, entwines her arms around her brother, Luke, who was 12 last Thursday, while both children smile fondly at their parents, Craig and Donna.
Yet the happy scene is full of poignancy. Until very recently, this Yorkshire couple were trapped in what a High Court judge described this week as "every parent's nightmare".

For an interminable 11 months, Jodie and Luke were removed from their home because their parents faced accusations from doctors of the most hideous crime imaginable: sexually molesting their own daughter.

They were permitted to visit their children only under strict supervision, for just three hours a week. All letters which they sent to Jodie and Luke were vetted by social workers - making them feel like criminals.

What's more, they were cruelly ordered not to say "I love you" to either boy or girl. Throughout this ordeal, the couple always protested their innocence and were relieved beyond belief. When Mr Justice Holman cleared them of any wrongdoing. He ordered the children's return, insisting that his ruling be made public so lessons are learned by doctors, social workers and lawyers working in the child protection service.

In a landmark judgment, he warned that even two decades after the infamous Cleveland child abuse scandal, parents are still being wrongly accused of molesting their sons and daughters.

The Cleveland controversy was Britain's biggest and first mass child abuse scare.

In 1987, 121 children were taken into state care in North-East England over five months after abuse was diagnosed on the basis of physical examinations carried out by a controversial paediatrician called Marietta Higgs.

The parents were often wrongly condemned - just like the Astons today - without their children being listened to or their family background being taken into account.

The doctors in the Eighties had relied on the discredited sign called Reflex Anal Dilatation (RAD), said to indicate sexual abuse.

Last year, the controversial sign was condemned as unreliable by the Government's chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, who admitted that its use had led to mistakes in Cleveland.

Everyone hoped the lessons had been learnt from Cleveland. But now the shocking extent of young Jodie Aston's ordeal is becoming clear, it seems that is tragically not the case.

Mr Justice Holman said it was inevitable that Jodie was now "emotionally damaged" by her experiences.

After the private hearing at Leeds High Court, he said: "Unless there is clear diagnostic evidence of abuse (for example, the presence of semen or a foreign body internally), purely medical assessments and opinions should not be allowed to predominate. Even 20 years after Cleveland, I wonder if the lessons have fully been learned." The importance of this judgment cannot be overstated. Jodie's father, a 33-year-old railway signals' engineer, courageously agreed to talk for the first time about the case.

He said: "I hope the judge's words will rein in doctors, and help other parents accused of sexually abusing their children without any real proof." What happened to the Aston family seems incredible in 21st-century England. They are now seeking legal advice in the hope that the General Medical Council, the doctors' disciplinary body, will investigate their case.

Yesterday, Leeds' Safeguarding Children's Board launched a review into Jodie's case, saying "all relevant, accurate facts" must be taken into account in future child abuse inquiries.

Officials said it was too early to reveal how many other children have been taken into care or even adopted, as a result of suspected sexual abuse over recent years.

However, the Mail is aware of two other families in the city who have had their children removed, largely on the basis of the RAD testing technique, yet who insist they are entirely innocent.

The Astons' nightmare began when they took Jodie, then aged eight, to Leeds General Infirmary's casualty department on a Monday evening in August 2005. She had scraped her groin on a small wall while playing with friends.

She was examined by doctors in Leeds at least eight times. Photographs and videos - later shown in court - were taken of her naked body again and again.

The girl was referred to the community paediatrics department at the city's St James's University Hospital on the following Thursday. Nothing was found to be amiss after an intimate examination. But two months later, Jodie was changing into her pyjamas after school when her mother saw a spot of blood on her pants.

Jodie, who was prone to eczema and had visible raw splits in the skin of her hands and arms, was again taken to casualty before being referred for a second time to the paediatrics unit at St James's.

The hospital has a busy child protection team, overseen by the respected paediatric consultant Dr Christopher Hobbs.

Significantly, he is an original pioneer of the RAD technique in this country. In June 1986, just a year before the Cleveland controversy broke, Dr Hobbs and his colleague Jane Wynne introduced young Marietta Higgs to this new way of diagnosing child molestation during a Leeds' medical conference.

By looking at and probing a child's bottom, the paediatricians claimed they could see if there was reflex anal dilatation and - therefore - abuse.

Dr Higgs enthusiastically embraced the technique, provoking the Cleveland crisis.

However, 80 per cent of the "victims" were later returned to their parents because they had not been hurt at all.

Since then, the nagging doubts about the technique have grown. Today, it is well-known that RAD can appear normally and spontaneously in any child.

According to some paediatricians - notably an expert named Professor Astrid Hegar from America, where RAD has been abandoned in some states - half of all children who have not been sexually abused show the same "tell-tale" sign when their bottoms are examined.

That means, of course, that almost any family taking their child to hospital or the doctor's surgery can be accused of child abuse.

Yet in Britain, many child doctors - including Dr Hobbs - rely on the technique as an important piece of many pieces in the jigsaw of diagnosing child abuse.

Even before 1987 - at the height of the Cleveland crisis - both Hobbs and Wynne were discovering high numbers of child sex abuse cases in Leeds by using RAD.

According to the doctors' research, published in the medical journal The Lancet, 94 boys and 243 girls were diagnosed as sexual abuse victims in a previous two-year period. The paper - still quoted in medical literature - says that eight in ten of the boys, and a quarter of the girls, had "anal signs".

Astonishingly, in half of all cases, the abusers were deemed to be the children's natural father and - even more bizarrely - five per cent were women. A quarter of the Leeds adults involved were convicted by the courts. The two doctors wrote at the time: "Sexual abuse is emerging as a major child and mental health problem." So it was against this background - in a city whose medical establishments were at the centre of the RAD debate - that Jodie Aston was taken by her mother to hospital. It was the first of many visits and, during one, on November 24, 2005, she met Dr Hobbs.

Although he did not physically examine Jodie, at the end of the appointment he and a fellow paediatrician said that they suspected child abuse. It was a terrible moment for Jodie's mother, Donna.

She says today: "I couldn't believe it. I began to cry. I walked out of there not knowing what to think. Jodie saw that I was quiet, and thought she had done something wrong. I waited in the car park for Craig to come and pick us up.

"I asked Jodie if her Daddy had done anything to her. She said "no" and I believed her. But when I got in the car, Craig saw that I had been crying. He asked me what was wrong and I just mumbled something about child abuse because I didn't want to upset Jodie." At home, after the children had gone to bed, Donna had to ask her husband a question that no wife should have to. Craig said he had not touched his daughter.

"I was being accused of something worse than murder," Craig said this week.

"From that point, we began to watch the children like hawks.

"We did not allow them even to go to the shops nearby. Luke said we were treating them like babies," added Donna, 34. However, the family remained under suspicion. Donna was told by the authorities that she was also considered the potential abuser of her daughter.

The following March, Jodie faced another assessment with Dr Hobbs. Just a few weeks earlier, she had again come home with a small blood spot on her pants.

This time, the paediatrician conducted a physical examination, which included RAD. He wrote in his report afterwards: "I feel that the time has come for me to involve social services, because I am concerned about the possibility that she may have been sexually abused."

The family were trapped. The doctors ignored Donna's suggestion that eczema might be the cause of the blood spots. Meanwhile, social workers began visiting the family regularly.

Overwhelmed with worry, Craig and Donna were advised to get an independent second medical opinion on Jodie's condition. Therefore, their GP arranged for a doctor called Ruth Skelton to examine their daughter. This proved to be a disastrous move.

Dr Skelton had been trained by Dr Hobbs. As Mr Justice Holman commented in his judgment: "In my view, the selection of her was deeply regrettable. Dr Skelton lacked the complete independence that is required for a second opinion in these sorts of circumstances.

"She was being asked to review the previous opinion of someone who was a more senior colleague, then working daily at the same hospital, and who had been her own teacher."

It emerged that Dr Skelton had discussed Jodie's case with Dr Hobbs before the so-called independent examination took place in March last year.

Dr Skelton concluded that she could spot RAD. According to her report, she said that Jodie had "been sexually abused chronically, over a long period, both anally and probably vaginally . . . I feel that this child is not protected at all at present." Both Jodie and her elder brother, Luke, were taken away from the parents the same day. It was arranged that they would live with their maternal grandparents, aged 77 and 78, three miles away from their home in Armley, a suburb of Leeds. Donna still finds it hard to relate the story as she sits with the children and Craig in the family's neat sitting room.

She says: "The social workers came at 9.30am to tell us they wanted to remove Jodie and Luke. It was a Thursday. Jodie and Luke were at school. They never came home for almost a year.

"I packed a few things for the first night: toothbrushes, pyjamas, a big bear toy that was Jodie's favourite. Then I had to come home alone.

"Craig was in a worse state than me. I thought he was going to harm himself. We woke up in night crying. We hugged each other because it was as if the children were dead."

This week, she said: "There were more tears, but we had to cope for the sake of the children. On Christmas Day last year, we were only allowed to see them for one hour." Yet the family's fortunes were changing.

Craig's lawyers had instructed the American paediatrician, Professor Hegar, to give her views. She has examined 40,000 children for suspected abuse during a 28-year career. She believes that a family's history - and a host of other factors - are vital when deciding if a child has been molested.

Professor Hegar studied the medical reports and photographs of Jodie. She said: "I believe that the medical examiners in this case have relied heavily on Reflex Anal Dilatation as diagnostic of sexual abuse.

"This is a common finding in up to 49 per cent of children who have not been abused. There is no research ... that supports the use of RAD as a sensitive or specific finding for sexual abuse."

Professor Hegar also suggested that dermatologists should examine Jodie to find another cause of her bleeding. One skin expert diagnosed that a small split in her skin, caused by eczema, may have produced the suspect spots of blood on Jodie's underwear.

Her crucial views were also heard by video link during the hearing into Jodie's case. Afterwards, Mr Justice Holman said Donna and Craig Aston are intelligent, responsible parents.

During the hearing, he met both their "bright and well-mannered" children, giving them chocolate biscuits and talking to them for nearly an hour.

Jodie told him that no one had touched her at home, or at primary school. Her brother Luke declared, quite spontaneously, that it was "all a big mistake".

He added: "We have got the best mum and dad. Why would they abuse my little sister?"

Both of the Aston children said they loved their parents dearly and only wanted to go home. Now, at last, thanks to an enlightened judge, they have finally got their wish.

But how many other families who suffered similarly disgraceful misdiagnoses, more than 20 years after it had been presumed the lessons of Cleveland had been learnt, are still fighting to clear their names? 

-------------------------

My baby had cancer but social workers falsely accused me of child abuse and took all three of my children
By SUE REID
Daily Mail, 22 February 2008

One November afternoon at just after two o'clock, Louise Mason stood in a hospital ward and kissed her 11-week- old baby goodbye.

She had dressed the little girl with care, packing a suitcase of tiny clothes and soft toys. Inside, she had placed a handwritten letter to the foster parents who would look after her in the future.

On that day five years ago, Louise felt as though her heart would burst.

"I wrote down everything about my daughter," she told me this week.

"I said she had colicky attacks at six in the evening, and should be rocked until she slept. I said she needed to be coaxed to take her milk."

After writing that sad note, the young mother from Northampton was forced to hand over the baby girl to social workers, who carried her off to her new home.

Louise, 32, then returned to her house, with its empty cot, in the seaside city of Derry, Northern Ireland. It must have been one of the loneliest journeys of her life.

The baby girl - now aged five - has never been returned to this wholly innocent mother who, because she was wrongly accused of harming her baby, also subsequently had two other children taken away from her.

This week, though, a High Court revealed there had been a terrible miscarriage of justice, and ordered that Louise must be reunited with all her children.

Furthermore, the judge, Mr Justice Gillon - in an age where children are removed from their parents by family courts sitting in secret - took the extremely unusual step of allowing Louise to be named, and for the tragic details of her case to become public.

In a statement he said: "The workings of the family justice system in this case are matters of public interest, and do merit public discussion. Public confidence in the process is necessary, and the emergence of the changing circumstances of this case merits an open discussion."

He went on to list the extraordinary catalogue of events which began when, worried out of her mind, Louise took her sickly month- old baby daughter to her GP, begging for help.

These shocking details shed light on a family justice system normally hidden from view.

Of course, there are parents who harm their children and deserve the full punishment of the law.

But in the family courts, thousands of children are removed from their parents to adoption or foster care in deeply dubious hearings which never become public.

If anyone speaks about the details - to a neighbour, to a friend, to a relative - they are in contempt of court.

Crucially, the courts' culture of secrecy means that if a social worker lies, or fabricates notes, or a doctor makes a mistake, then no one finds out, and there is no retribution.

It is only because Louise was charged with a criminal offence in an open and public court - like other innocent mothers wrongly accused of infanticide, such as Angela Cannings and the late Sally Clark - that her harrowing story can be heard.

Louise was born in Northampton, the youngest of three. Her father had a plastering business, and her mother raised a close, caring family.

By the time she was in her 20s, Louise was running a successful restaurant. A few years later, she met her boyfriend, who came from Derry, and the couple had a baby. They moved to Northern Ireland to set up home.

Louise says now: "I came here in 2001, thinking Derry was the perfect place for children to grow up."

The couple had a second baby - another girl, born a healthy 7lb. But then she and her partner split up, leaving Louise a single mother.

"I was quite able to cope with the toddler and the baby, who was very placid," explains Louise. "I was a full-time mother and proud of it."

Then came the bombshell. One Saturday, when the baby was just four weeks old, Louise noticed that she was looking very ill, as though she was about to collapse.

In fact, it is now known that without medical care she would have died within an hour.

"I rushed my daughter around to our local doctor, who immediately rang the Derry hospital. I hurried there with this little bundle in my arms.

"The baby was taken off me in the children's ward. I next saw her five hours later, at 7pm.

"One of the doctors then sat me down and said: 'It is touch and go'" The team mentioned right away that it might be cancer. I remember that as though it were yesterday," says Louise, crying this week at the memory.

"The next morning, they again said cancer was suspected."

A day later, on the Sunday, the baby was taken by ambulance to the Royal Belfast hospital 60 miles away. She had a blood transfusion and tests. By the Tuesday, three days after the emergency admission, Louise was hoping that she would get a proper diagnosis.

But further investigation had showed that the left kidney and the area around it was swollen, and among medical staff there was a wide variety of opinion about the cause. Before long, doctors became highly suspicious that this was, in fact, caused by an injury.

Louise was called into a room and confronted by a doctor.

"He asked me if I had done anything to hurt my baby. He said he had called the social services and the police. I promised him I had done nothing to my child."

Her words fell on deaf ears. Back home, her elder daughter, who was being cared for by a neighbour, was collected by social workers and taken into foster care.

Yet still the trusting Louise thought it would all be sorted out in a few days. How wrong she was.

Seven weeks later, on November 15, 2002, the police contacted her.

"They asked me to attend the police station for an interview under caution. They said I was suspected of grievous bodily harm with intent."

The interview dragged on. At lunchtime, Louise was put in a cell. She was distraught.

"I was frozen with fright," she recalls.

"I kept telling them that there was no bruising or redness found on the baby, so how could I have hurt her?"

Four days later, worse news followed: her baby daughter was to be taken into foster care, too.

At the hospital, she was told by social workers to get the 11-week- old baby she was accused of harming ready. Her fingers trembling, Louise dressed her baby and kissed her goodbye.

From then on, she was allowed to see her children at a special supervised centre for only four-and-a-half hours a week.

They were delivered to the centre from their foster homes by social workers, and then taken away again.

"The eldest one could remember me," says Louise, "but I had hardly had a chance to bond with the new baby before she was taken from me."

All the time, Louise faced a barrage of accusations. The authorities claimed that she was a potential killer.

A leading member of the social work team told her: "I do not think you are safe to be left in a room alone with any boy or girl."

In January 2004 - a little over year later - a formal application to take the children into care was made in the family division of the Northern Ireland High Court in Belfast.

The medical evidence given by five doctors from the hospitals was damning. They said Louise had deliberately hurt the baby girl with great force.

"It was then that they began to make noises about adoption,' says Louise. 'My legal team were fighting hard, but it was a battle we could not win because we did not have the medical evidence." The children remained with their foster parents.

That autumn, Louise was brought before a criminal court in Derry facing two charges of causing grievous bodily harm to the baby girl.

It was only then that anyone listened to her.

In an emotional outburst, she blurted out to the jury that she wanted to take a lie detector test to prove that she had done nothing wrong. It was the turning point. The jury believed her, and in November 2004 she was acquitted of the charges. However, her children remained in care.

Meanwhile, the story of the mother begging for a lie detector test was reported in the local Press. By chance, the consultant radiologist who had treated Louise's baby girl at the local hospital on the very first day she was brought in, read the article and was appalled.

He remembered the case and the wide divergence of medical opinion, yet had never known that Louise was under suspicion or that she was to have been prosecuted. He was convinced then that the child was suffering from a rare form of cancer of the left kidney, called neuroblastoma, which could have caused the bleeding.

Dr D - as he was called in Mr Justice Gillon's judgment this week - contacted Louise's solicitor and offered to help clear her name.

"It was a miracle," Louise told me.

"That doctor was my guardian angel. The last years have been very hard for me. I was pilloried. It felt like torture having my children taken from me."

Even though she had been acquitted, the social workers appeared to ignore the verdict.

But Dr D told Louise's solicitor that he was struck by the "power" of her request to the jury to have a lie detector test.

He offered to help, suggesting that a team of independent paediatricians, including experts on kidneys, cancer and non- accidental injury, should be asked to give their own opinions on the findings of the five hospital doctors.

Significantly, the independent experts thought that the baby's internal bleeding had occurred naturally. And when their testimony was produced by Louise's lawyers at a Court of Appeal hearing, the judges quashed the family court rulings.

As a result, in June last year the Foyle Health and Social Services Trust, which covers Derry, said it no longer intended to pursue their action to keep Louise's children in care or have them adopted. It was an almighty climbdown.

By then, however, another tragedy had happened on the say-so of the social workers.

In 2005, a year after she had been acquitted, Louise had became pregnant for a third time.

She is reluctant to talk about the father, or name him, although they are no longer together - but at Christmas time, when she was heavily pregnant, the social workers called and told her they planned to take the latest addition away from her at birth.

"I couldn't believe my ears," says Louise.

"I had been declared not guilty in a criminal court - yet they still had both my children and were wanting my new baby. It was torture."

The baby was born early in 2006. True to their word, Louise had just given birth and was trying to breastfeed when the social workers arrived at Altnagelvin Hospital, Derry.

The nurses, on the instructions of the social workers, took the newborn baby away to safety in another ward while Louise's solicitor remonstrated with them that it was cruel to do such a thing.

It was five hours before the baby was returned to Louise in the maternity unit.

Ten days later, when she was about to leave hospital, the social workers returned and seized the child, placing the baby with foster parents.

Only recently - following the collapse of the Social Services Trust case - has Louise been given back the baby, and her eldest child, too.

She has missed a whole chunk of their early years.

But perhaps the saddest thing of all is that the little girl who was so sick as a baby may never return home again. She has known no mother or father apart from her foster parents, and has bonded with them very closely.

Although she has now recovered - significantly, it was a form of cancer that can go into remission of its own accord, without the need for surgery or chemotherapy - her left kidney does not function normally.

But she is happy with the couple whom she calls her Mummy and Daddy.

Recently, as part of a phased plan to reunite her permanently with her natural family, she came back to stay with Louise for a night.

"She cried terribly for her foster parents all the evening - it made us all unhappy," says Louise, sadly.

"She knows me, but will only call me Mummy Louise. It breaks me into pieces.

"She may never come home and live with me again because she wants to be with the only people she has ever recognised as her parents. It may be cruel to take her back now."

It is, by any standards, a tragic indictment of the child protection system.

-------------------------

What do our  MPs who represent us in parliament think about all this?

Prime Minister Responds on Adoption
Q6. [163661] John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): In England in 2006, 4,160 children under five were taken into care and more than 60 per cent. of them—2,490—were adopted. However, in Scotland 574 left care and 373, roughly 64 per cent., went home to their parents. Can the Prime Minister explain why in England children under five who leave care get adopted, while in Scotland they go home to their parents?
The Prime Minister: Social work legislation in the two countries is, of course, different. I shall look at the figures that the hon. Gentleman has put before me. But as is known, we have made strenuous efforts to try to ensure that children in difficulty are given the proper upbringing, whether that is by returning to their parents or, where it is essential, by being fostered or adopted. I will continue to look at the matter, but the hon. Gentleman has to understand that social work practice in the two countries is different.

This does go to the nub of the issue. What is so different between parents in England and parents in Scotland that means that it is "essential" for under 5s to get adopted in England, but they can go home to their parents in Scotland?

Early Day Motions

EDMs are motions in parliament. Normally they don't get debated. However, they are a sort of petition signed only by Members of Parliament. You can ask your MP to sign an EDM. You need to say which number EDM it is. MPs who are members of the government cannot sign EDMs, but you can ask them to write a letter to the minister in support of the EDM.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMByMember.aspx? MID=4735&SESSION=891

EDM 124

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34214&SESSION=891

That this House notes that local authorities and their staff are incentivised to ensure that children are adopted; is concerned about increasing numbers of babies being taken into care, not for the safety of the infant, but because they are easy to get adopted; and calls urgently for effective scrutiny of care proceedings to stop this from happening.

EDM125

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34215&SESSION=891

That this House believes that mothers should be encouraged to breastfeed as this is in the interests of the long-term health of babies; recognises that for newborn babies this means breastfeeding on demand; further believes that newborn babies in care should also be breastfed on demand where this does not result in any risk to the baby; and calls for the Government to introduce guidelines to ensure that facilities are provided to ensure that newborn babies can be breastfed on demand.

EDM 126

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34216&SESSION=891

That this House notes the comments of a senior social worker that meetings have been held during which solicitors acting for parents have discussed how to undermine the cases of their clients; further notes that there are many odd cases in which solicitors fail to oppose care proceedings or accept that the section 31 threshold has been met notwithstanding the opposition of their clients; recognises that reporting and obtaining the investigation of such behaviour outwith parliamentary proceedings remains a contempt of court for hon. Members; and asks the Solicitors Regulatory Authority to review the implementation of the new solicitors' code of conduct and how this relates to conflicts of interest in the Family Court.

EDM127

To sack your solicitor and your barrister just download form N434 !

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34217&SESSION=891

That this House regrets the Government's proposals to retain secrecy within the family courts; believes that this secrecy permeates bad practice throughout the whole system of children services; feels that it is possible to protect the identity of the child while allowing parents to talk and seek advice publicly about their treatment in the family courts, and that professional witnesses should be uniquely identified to monitor consistency; further believes that every case should have an anonymised judgement handed to the parents that they can discuss publicly; and calls on the Government to recognise that there are very serious problems in the system that have been postponed rather than resolved by the limited proposals contained within the consultation document.

EDM128

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34218&SESSION=891

That this House notes that in an email dated 24th October 2000, John Radford, Doncaster's then Director of Public Health, described the issue of research on babies by Dr David Southall at Doncaster Hospital in the late 1980s as `potentially a hot potato as to my recall the intervention resulted in increased deaths and didn't have proper consent'; expresses concern that the details of this research and its outcomes have been covered up by the health authorities; expresses particular concern that the research protocol specifically required that no action be taken to prevent cot death in the children selected until sufficient data had been collected; notes that the inquiry into CNEP ignored CNEP in Doncaster; and calls for a public inquiry into this and other research managed by Dr Southall to identify why the checks and balances in the system failed.

EDM129

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34219&SESSION=891

That this House notes that it is common practice for a firm of solicitors to perform outsourced work for a local authority and also to represent parents when parties in cases against the same local authority; notes and is surprised that this conflict of interest is acceptable under the professional conduct rules; understands that some parents would be surprised to find that this is the case; and calls for the Law Society to require that parents be asked to confirm in writing that they recognise that the firm they are instructing is conflicted in this way as part of the client engagement process.

EDM130

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34220&SESSION=891

That this House notes that from time to time the advice given by an expert appointed by one party to a court case is used to permit the exclusion of capacity of a further party to that case and then the Official Solicitor is brought in to act on behalf of the latter party; believes that it is an unacceptable conflict of interest; and calls, notwithstanding the duty of experts to the court, for the Government to introduce legislation to prevent this from occurring.

Don't just take my word for the rest of my allegations.Please read the following articles from the Daily Mail,and the Sunday Telegraph as they very accurately depict the mounting and highly justified public disquiet over the secret family courts and the "adoption industry".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html ?in_article_id=465563&in_page_id=1770  

Courts won't reveal rulings in adoption cases

By Ben Leapman, Home Affairs Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:44am BST 08/08/2007

Pauline Goodwin’s baby was taken from her but she was denied a copy of the judgment. The court service has now apologised

Family courts are refusing to tell mothers why their babies are being taken away and put up for forced adoption.

Two mothers have told The Sunday Telegraph that their pain at losing their children was made worse by not knowing the grounds on which judges took the decisions.
 
Both women had their requests for copies of the judgments turned down repeatedly. As a result, they were prevented from launching legal battles to win their babies back, because appeals cannot be lodged without -written judgments.

Critics claimed that the cases are an extreme example of the secrecy that runs throughout the family court system. Earlier this summer, the Government abandoned plans to open up hearings to the media.

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of Justice for Families, said: "It seems quite strange that somebody can have their child removed and adopted, and the system will not give reasons.

"This arises from the secrecy of proceedings and the fact that people are allowed to misbehave professionally in the family courts without any fear of sanctions against them."

The cases are the latest in a series highlighted by this newspaper which have raised concerns about the workings of the family courts and social services.

It included a professional couple who had their daughter taken away because the mother has a history of mental illness and the father was "confrontational" towards social workers, while another couple were told they cannot have their two daughters back despite being cleared of allegations of abuse.

Last year, 2,120 babies were taken for adoption before their first birthday, almost three times as many as a decade ago. Adoptions leapt after councils were offered cash incentives to increase the number.

One of the latest cases involved Pauline Goodwin, 39, from Merseyside, who suffered a breakdown after her marriage ended. As she struggled to cope, her baby girl, born in 2005, was taken away by social services at birth.

At a court hearing in June last year, held at a time when she was temporarily homeless, Judge Wallwork ruled at Liverpool Family Court that the baby should remain in foster care.

The mother says she was told that despite the outcome of the case, the judgment would not be critical of her. However, in the 14 months since the hearing, her repeated requests to obtain a copy of the judgment have proved fruitless. She has been told by social workers that her daughter has now been adopted.

She said: "They had my baby adopted, then they said they make no findings against me, but they won't give me the court order. I need the judgment because I want to lodge an appeal. It's supposed to be within 28 days but it has been more than 12 months.

"If they give me the transcripts I can prove the whole thing was wrong, and my baby wouldn't be where she is now, she would be with me."

Sharon Harkness, 37, also from Merseyside, won the first round of her courtroom battle when social workers tried to take her baby son away. In August 2005, at the High Court in London, Mr Justice Holman turned down a bid by a local authority to take the boy, then only three months old, into foster care.

However, at Liverpool Family Court in November, Judge Roddy reversed the earlier decision and granted the council a care order. The baby was removed from his family and is now living with prospective adoptive parents.

In the intervening 21 months, repeated requests by Mrs Harkness for a written judgment have been refused or ignored. She said: "It's within my rights to at least see the kind of care order they've put my son on. It's like they've taken my baby and forgotten to give me the receipt."

At one point she tried to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, only to be told that the court could not consider her case because she had no written judgment on which to base it.

At the end of last week, after The Sunday Telegraph took up the cases with the Judicial Communications Office in London, officials issued an apology within hours and finally pledged that both women would receive the vital documents within days.

In Miss Goodwin's case, a spokesman said: "Her Majesty's Court Service would like to apologise that in this case, the transcripts were not provided as requested. There appears to have been a breakdown in communications. The transcription company will prepare the transcripts next week and once they are approved by the judge, the court will send them out."

Regarding Mrs Harkness, the spokesman said: "There was an ambiguity in the original order which had not been corrected and caused a delay in the process. The transcript has now been produced and is with the judge, prior to being sent to the family next week."

Pauline (story and photo above) has learned a lot during her 3 year struggle with the "SS" .She now helps and advises other parents in distress and also organises demonstrations.

Contact:-  07956371132

-----------------------

My baby will be taken from me the moment it's born
By HELEN WEATHERS  
Daily Mail 6th September 2007

The link below connects to a video of a very informative itv programme:-

http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/Media/Bill-Bache_John -Hemming_Fran-Lyon_ITV-This-Morning02-11- 07.wmv

The daughter of teachers and with a glittering academic future, Fran was delighted when she became pregnant. But social services discovered the illness she thought she'd put behind her - and will confiscate her daughter when she is born... Fran Lyon is due to give birth to her first child - a daughter she has already named Molly - on January 3. But the prospect, far from being one of joyous anticipation, fills her with a dread that keeps her awake at night. It's not because Fran doesn't want the child. She does. Desperately. And not because she is frightened of the pain of labour. She is prepared for that. It is what happens afterwards that fuels Fran's anxiety. And there can be no preparation for that pain. For within 30 minutes of birth, barring any medical complications, Molly will be handed by doctors to social workers. They have instructions to take away Fran's newborn baby and place her in foster care. The 22-year-old will then be transferred from the maternity wing to a gynaecological ward, because Northumberland Council has decided that Fran - who has never harmed anyone in her life - is potentially a risk to other mothers and their babies. Fran has no idea if she will be able to touch her baby, even for a minute, before leaving hospital alone, or if she will ever get her daughter back. Her biggest fear is that she won't, and that Molly will be put up for adoption. 'It is incredibly upsetting not knowing if I will be allowed even to hold my baby,' says Fran, a charity worker. 'Until social services became involved in my life, I was having a normal pregnancy and was full of excitement. 'They have taken away what should be the most precious time in my life - and I will never get that back. I'm already in love with my baby. I can feel her moving, I talk to her. I've bought her baby books and clothes. You just can't undo that attachment.' Fran is an intelligent and articulate woman. She has nine A- starred GCSEs, five grade A A-levels and is in the third year of a neuroscience degree at Edinburgh University - which she is completing at home in Hexham, Northumberland.

However, what concerns Hexham Children's Services, which is part of Northumberland Council, is Fran's medical history.

Having had a difficult relationship with her parents, who are teachers in good state schools, from the age of 15, she started selfharming. Fran spent three years - on and off - in psychiatric hospitals.

Her problems appear to have begun when she was raped by an acquaintance at the age of 14. Diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, she was discharged from a therapeutic facility in 2002, where she had spent 13 months, and spent nine months as an outpatient.

Today, she needs no medication and, according to her former psychiatrist, Dr Stella Newrith, 'has made a significant recovery to the point where her difficulties are indistinguishable from those of much of the general population'.

In a letter to Northumberland Council, Dr Newrith, who treated Fran for a year when she was 16 and has known her for many years, stated: 'There has never been any clinical evidence to suggest that Fran would put herself or others at risk, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest she would put a child at risk of emotional, physical or sexual harm.'

Furthermore, she said: 'I would view the removal of Fran's baby as an extraordinarily heavy-handed gesture. It is also my professional opinion that doing so would be an infringement of Fran's human rights, as it would be much the same as removing a child from someone from the general population.'

Yet on August 16, a child protection case conference recommended that Fran's baby should be taken away at birth - a decision based in part on the contents of a letter from consultant paediatrician Dr Martin Ward Platt, who has never met Fran and could not be present at the meeting.

In his letter, Dr Ward Platt states that 'even in the absence of psychological assessment, if the professionals were concerned on the evidence available that [this woman] probably does fabricate or induce illness, there would be no option but to put the baby into foster care at birth pending a post-natal forensic psychological assessment'.

However, he warned that it was necessary first to establish as far as possible whether or not Fran does suffer from this illness - something Fran claims they have failed to do.

Fran has never been diagnosed with this condition, yet she has nevertheless been deemed by Northumberland Council as someone likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, a controversial and unproven condition in which a parent - usually the mother - makes up or induces an illness in her child to draw attention to herself.

And so, unless a judicial review next week rules in Fran's favour, her baby Molly will almost certainly be taken away at birth.

'I can understand why they might have concerns about my past, but the speed with which they have come to this conclusion, despite the evidence of my own psychiatrist, is terrifying,' she says.

'I was at the case conference and it lasted just ten minutes.

'This letter from Dr Ward Platt was given to me just five minutes before the meeting started, and when it was produced, the chairman said there was no point - in the light of what this letter stated - even considering the other evidence which I wanted to present, which was letters of support from psychiatrists.

'I think they simply panicked, and when people panic they make, in my opinion, bad judgments. I left that meeting numb with shock. I'd had absolutely no time to digest the letter or argue my case, and I was so horrified at what they'd said that I just couldn't even begin to respond to it.

'I have never harmed anyone in my life. I have no criminal convictions. I believe I can be a good mother to Molly - but they are not even prepared to give me a chance to prove that.

'I have offered to stay in a mother and baby unit after Molly's birth for as long as they want, and to be monitored. I would be prepared to stay there for 18 years if it meant I could be with my baby. But that, it seems, is not even an option.'

Fran's case is far from unusual. Two thousands babies under one year old were taken from their parents last year by social services - three times the number ten years ago. Critics believe councils are doing this to help meet government adoption 'targets'.

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, chairman of the Justice for Families campaign group, certainly thinks so.

'How can it be in the child's best interests to take a baby away from its mother at birth? The reason why they do it is because it's much harder to take away a baby the longer it spends with its mother, and a healthy newborn baby is so much easier to find adoptive parents for.

'It is estimated that 97 per cent of babies taken away from their mothers at birth, on the basis that the mothers are "capable of emotional abuse", are never returned to them - and that is simply scandalous.

'Of course, there are cases where it is right to do so, but the whole public family law system is corrupt because of the secrecy which surrounds it. Decisions are based on opinion and conjecture, rather than fact and evidence.

'What does Fran's case tell us? That no woman who has been raped or had mental health problems can be allowed to have a baby, even years later?

'What could be more traumatic than for a mother to have her baby taken away at birth? It's monstrous. That, in itself, can cause mental health problems, which is then used by social services against the mother as a reason not to return the baby. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

'There has been a massive increase in younger babies being taken into care, before there is even any evidence of harm - and you have to ask why that is.'

Despite her own troubled past, Fran Lyon is convinced she can be a good parent, and is desperate to prove that. From the start, she has been open and honest with social workers about her medical history, but she feels this has been used against her.

Although she describes her childhood as 'difficult', she refuses to elaborate, other than to say that she is close to her mother and younger brother, but has no contact with her father.

The catalyst for her severe mental health problems was, she says, the rape she suffered when she was 14.

She told police that she was attacked while working as a Saturday volunteer in a charity shop in Northampton, when the shop's founder - a middle-aged man - drove her to an empty warehouse supposedly to pick up supplies for the shop.

When Fran reported the rape, he was interviewed by police. Three more women claiming they, too, had been attacked came forward and agreed to testify against him. However, in 2001 the man killed himself before the Crown Prosecution Service could decide whether to proceed.

'After the rape, I became clinically depressed,' says Fran. 'I lost a huge amount of weight and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital after trying to kill myself with an overdose of tablets. It wasn't a cry for help; I wanted to die because of what he had done to me.'

She spent the next three years, on and off, in residential psychiatric hospitals in Oxford, Nottingham and London after being diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, in her case characterised by self-harming, instability and suicidal tendencies.

For the final 13 months, Fran went to a therapeutic residential clinic, where she attended individual psychotherapy sessions and group analysis before being discharged as an outpatient.

By the time she was 18, she appeared to have put her problems behind her.

She started to flourish, taking five A-levels at Orpington College in Kent and applying to study neuroscience at Edinburgh University.

At the same time, she worked for two mental health charities, Borderline and Personality Plus. It was through that job, two years ago, that she met the man who is the father of Molly.

'Of course, I was worried when I fell pregnant. I wondered how we would cope as a couple, because we weren't living together,' says Fran.

'But once that wore off, I was excited. I would go shopping with my mum to baby departments, buying books and looking at prams.'

But a few weeks ago, all normality ended. Social services suddenly became involved when Fran phoned the police after what she describes as a 'disturbing incident' with her partner. Fran's relationship with him ended immediately.

'The case was referred to social services and I was interviewed by two social workers, who said from the beginning that they would have to look at the whole family, not just one person in isolation,' says Fran.

'At that first meeting, they asked about my concerns regarding the baby's father, but then it became clear through their questions that their investigation was centred on me. I have never made a secret of my mental health problems. I felt I had nothing to hide.'

Fran was co- operative, she says, because she naively thought children's services would offer her help and support. She was stunned when she received a letter informing her that a child protection case conference would be held on August 16.

'That's when I became frightened and thought for the first time: "Are they going to take my baby away from me?"

'I couldn't believe how everything had happened so quickly. When you are up against a big system such as social services, it is very easy to feel overrun and overwhelmed.'

Realising the seriousness of the situation, Fran instructed a solicitor and contacted her former psychiatrist, Dr Stella Newrith, who offered her full support.

A second psychiatrist, who Fran knew through her charity work, offered a character reference stating: 'I have no doubt that her diligence and capacity, particularly in dealing with complex emotional situations, will stand her in good stead for the rigours of parenthood.'

Yet these testimonials, Fran says, were never even read out at the conference after Dr Ward Platt's letter was produced.

Northumberland Council insists that two highly experienced doctors - another consultant paediatrician and a medical consultant - attended the case conference.

Neither they, nor anyone else present - including Fran solicitor - made any objection. Feeling stunned and intimidated by what she had heard, she felt unable to speak out.

Everything she wanted to say will now be heard - with the help of a new solicitor who specialises in such cases - at appeal.

According to MP John Hemming, Fran should win her case; but there is no guarantee that she will. Both he and Fran are particularly concerned that last week social workers contacted the psychiatrist who provided a character reference for Fran. They believe this was done with the intention of 'pressurising' the witness into withdrawing his support, and undermining Fran's appeal.

It was seemingly suggested by a social worker to the doctor in question that Fran had given incorrect details about her health to hospital staff: in short, doubt was cast on the reality of an ectopic pregnancy Fran suffered on Christmas Eve two years ago.

'Is it ethical for social workers to go behind my back and speak to my witnesses, discussing my private confidential medical history and suggesting to them that I might have made things up?' says Fran.

'I did have an ectopic pregnancy, and I have the scars to prove that I had abdominal surgery.' Mr Hemming goes further, describing such behaviour as akin to witness nobbling. He also claims it is not uncommon for social workers to pressurise witnesses - a punishable practice in the criminal courts.

'There is a culture in which the end is seen to justify the means, and sometimes the means employed would not be tolerated in any other court of law,' he says. 'Yet if anyone tries to speak out, they are guilty of contempt of court. The whole family court system, because of the secrecy which surrounds it, is vulnerable to bad practice. Social workers are under pressure not to lose cases.' Northumberland Council, while legally prevented from speaking about individual cases, insists there is nothing sinister in their actions.

A spokeswoman said it was the court whichwould make the ultimate decision, after hearing legal representation from both sides. 'Safeguarding children is our top priority,' said a spokeswoman. 'We speak to all sides without bias or pressure. 'We would welcome a review of the family court arrangements, and support transparency, as long as this is in the best interests of the children.

'Safeguarding arrangements have been praised as good following a rigorous inspection by a number of Government departments. It was specifically noted that "good action was taken to enable parents to keep their children safe in the home and the communityî. Our duty to safeguard children is our only motivation, and we strive to keep children with their families wherever possible, or extended families if that is not possible.

'We do not have numerical targets for adoption; nor have we received any financial rewards in relation to adoption figures.'

As for Fran, the final four months of her pregnancy are filled with stress and uncertainty, and the nagging terror that her worst nightmare will become a reality and her baby daughter will be snatched away from her. 'Some days I feel positive,' she says quietly.

'But others I feel totally overwhelmed. All I am asking for is a chance to prove that I will be a good mother.'

Sadly, that wish may not be granted her.

-----------------------

IMPORTANT! The miserable wretch who was chairman of the so called "Case Conference" that lasted 15 minutes should be  dismissed in disgrace. His name is BOB HILL and  he should never be allowed near any case conference ever again !

AND THEN? Fran flees the country, see the link below! 

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

 I try to help parents who are desperately trying to recover or at least make contact either with their children or worse still with "newborn babies"  snatched by social services from mothers that have never caused them harm.Those social workers who snatch, and those lawyers, "experts" and especially the "ESTABLISHMENT JUDGES" who combine to help them should all be sent to prison for "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY" for a very long time! I will explain and justify this later on. They can be beaten, but only if you fight from start to finish as the following shows!

Damages win for Tim and Gina Williams - falsely suspected of abusing their children
The Times, Dec 23, 2008
by Simon de Bruxelles

A couple whose three children spent two years in care because social workers wrongly believed that they were at risk of abuse have been awarded a “six-figure” sum in compensation.

Tim and Gina Williams’s son and two daughters were taken from them and placed with separate foster families. The couple, from Newport, South Wales, received an undisclosed sum yesterday in an agreed settlement at the High Court in Cardiff and were given a full written apology from Newport City Council.

The court was told that there had never been any evidence that the children, now aged 14, 11 and 9, had been abused. As a result of the social workers’ actions, the Williams missed their children’s birthdays, Christmases and their first days in new schools.

A judge completely exonerated them at the High Court in October 2006 and the children were returned to them.

The couple, who waived their right to anonymity, began a compensation claim against Newport City Council and Royal Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust soon after. Robin Tolson, QC, for the couple, said: “This settlement brings closure, at least of a kind, for Tim and Gina Williams and their children. The effect of what happened will continue to be felt for a long time but at least this now marks the end of four years spent fighting for their children and their rights before the court.”

Mr Williams, 39, and two of his children sat at the back of the court during the brief hearing.

In August 2004 Mr Williams called the police after finding his youngest daughter naked from the waist down with an 11-year-old friend. The girl was taken to hospital for a precautionary check-up and the doctor who carried out the examination claimed to have found evidence of longstanding abuse but by an adult, not an 11-year-old.

Mr Williams and his wife were told that they were under suspicion and the children were taken into care. A second doctor confirmed the evidence of abuse and the couple were restricted to supervised weekly visits to their children.

There were exonerated after a US expert in child abuse examined the evidence and disputed the claims by the British doctors, who subsequently accepted that they had been mistaken. The council conceded that the children should never have been taken from their parents on the basis of the evidence.

Giving his judgment, Judge Crispin Masterman said that the children’s names were never put on the child protection register and it was simply decided to remove them from the family home. He said that the criticisms were coupled with an acknowledgment that all professionals involved were acting for the good of the children.

“It is undoubtedly true that social services departments have in recent years operated with inadequate resources and under immense stress and run the risk of attracting equal criticism whether they remove a child or whether they do not.”

A Newport council representative said: “A settlement has now been reached which will support the children’s future. The wellbeing of the children has remained paramount throughout this case. While the local authority has offered sincere apologies to the family, our priority was always the safety of the children. The court concluded that the council acted in good faith given the strength of the medical evidence presented.

“The council, together with other members of Newport safeguarding children board, has embraced the recommendations of the multi-agency review.”

Under the terms of the settlement, the family are banned from talking about it. 
_____ 

Sue & Tess

---

Sarah and Ian Walton Are Pleased To Announce the Arrival of Their New Baby Girl

From Catherine Sara

Dear Ian,
I am posting this as asked by members whom you have worked day and night to help in every way possible.
I know you are very modest and expect nothing in return for all your help.
Day and night you answer the call.
If only all Social Workers, Lawyers, Judges, etc were as dedicated to the higher good as you are,
Then oh what a world we would have of happiness and joy and light for ALL OF US.
May your light shine ever brighter and may all our lights shine like beacons until all our lights touch and spread to cover
OUR MOTHER ....EARTH.
THE ONE MOTHER WE ALL SHARE.
Thank you Ian.

We salute you.   

All it takes for evil to succeed is that good people do nothing.

________________________________________

Hi Ian
Dave and myself would like you to know all the mothers and people we have spoken too. All agree that you are one of the few genuien persons we all know. I dont think you quite realise the hope and the determination that you give to us when we feel like giving up you have a certain power that gives us all insperation to keep fighting you are very special to us all, and we won,t forget you I will still be contacting you when this is all over with. I will even bring Connor to see you and tell him of all your support and insperation that you gave to us I will tell him you are the main man the one we first found when you was snatched from our arms.

Know this Ian because it is the truth when I say to you that you live up to more than our exspectations your an angle a bright light in a very dark wicked world showing everyone the truth about the ss,lawyers, and the evil judges we were all lost until you showed us the way to fight.

Sharon xx

A teenage mother has been reunited with her baby after the child was taken by social services without a court order.

The boy was taken two hours after he was born to the 18-year-old, who had just left the care of Nottingham social services.

Hours later, Mr Justice Munby at the High Court said no baby could be removed "as the result of a decision taken by officials in some room".

The woman's solicitor Stuart Luke said she would lodge a claim for damages.

________________________________________

If you "Cooperate" when the SS make threats, they will at once class you as "easy meat" and you will soon be " lost!". The only chance you have of winning is to ignore threats and "fight like a tiger"! Always be the opposite in character to the type they say you are! If they say you are aggressive be very quiet, and if they say you are too feeble to control your children start acting assertively but never tell them what you intend to do next!

In many courts if you represent yourself you can get technical help with documents etc from the PSU (PERSONAL SUPPORT UNIT). In London they are to be found in room M104, Royal Courts of Justice,the Strand tel 02079477701/7703 or 4th floor Room 408, first avenue house, high holburn, Principal Registry of the Family Division Tel 02079477737.

Meanwhile,reading through pages of texts can be very hard work, so before I tell you more about myself and the "SS", and just in case you get bored reading this I'll begin with essential advice for those who are already suffering............

HOW TO FACE THE "SS"!

NEVER, NEVER, cringe and obey social workers who are hostile or disrespectful, no matter how many threats they make to "take your children" or "cut off your contact".You like every human being have a right to be treated at all times with kindness and respect, and you should say so, frequently if necessary! Threats that in effect amount to moral blackmail should always be greeted with polite amazement that those whose duty is to help families should shout and issue threats! Always apologise very politely for doing what YOU think right, and never get so worried by their threats that you feel forced to give in and obey........!!Always meet social workers on an "equal footing" so that only one of them can meet you if you are alone,and if two of them come together insist you have a friend or other family member present so you are NEVER OUTNUMBERED.Their threats are bluff as even if you do everything they say, they will long before then have made up their minds to take your children and/or cut your contact anyway. So if you do obey them, they will after thanking you for making their task so easy, graciously let you "wave goodbye" to your precious children!

 BEWARE and REFUSE if they decide to make an unannounced "home visit" or worse still ask you to take your children to the hospital for a "checkup" on a Friday afternoon ! In the latter case they will keep you waiting until 5 or 6pm and then snatch your children when it is too late for you to get legal help or advice before Monday! They have no legal power only the courts have that, so if they dare to threaten you instead of helping you, NEVER give in to their outrageous blackmail, and NEVER, obey ANY of the loathsome creatures who dare to behave as described above! 

Some critics of the "SS" in an attempt to seem reasonable and moderate claim that "there are many excellent social workers in "child protection" but also there are a minority who do not behave as they should". This to put it politely is an "understatement of staggering timidity"! Are there any excellent members of the "Ku Klux Klan"? How about suicide bombers? Were there any nice people in the Spanish Inquisition, the Gestapo, Stalin's KGB,  or Murder Incorporated? Any worthwhile and sincerely motivated social workers who join the "child protection service" do not stay long once they see what goes on. Once they realise what they have to do they either transfer out of "child protection" into a different section or if that is not possible ,rather than continue the criminal kidnapping of newborn babies they RESIGN !!That is why the "SS" are contantly advertising for new recruits.Nearly all of those who still remain "in the service" taking babies from sane mothers who have never caused those babies to suffer any harm are quite simply "SCUM"!  

If the worst happens and your children are snatched by force try and ruin the SS adoption plans! DO NOT LET POLICE OR SOCIAL WORKERS IN YOUR HOUSE TO REMOVE CHILDREN UNLESS THEY SHOW YOU A COURT ORDER Make sure your children cling on to you until the SS rip them away by force !  Shout and cry that wicked people are stealing them. Cuddle those poor children telling them that "mummy loves them" and will try to get them back! Any children aged 4 or more will remember this  for the rest of their lives and will not believe the SS who will later tell them that "their mummy does not want them" and soon they will have a new "forever Mummy and Daddy! "It is worth upsetting your beloved children briefly to make sure that always in the future they will remember you loved them and wanted to keep them from the "child stealers!"

What if your child is badly neglected or injured whilst "in care" of fosterers? Well, take photographs of the bruises then go to a magistrate and just like the "SS" ask for an "emergency protection order" emphasising that fosterers must surely be subject to the same laws as birth parents!  Follow up by taking your photos to the police demanding a prosecution failing which your photos will go to the local press! Fight like a tiger and you can win your children back!

After all even "The Guardian",the social worker's favourite newspaper (earning vast sums from hundreds of SS adverts for jobs) is getting worried about adoptions.

Unfit to be a mother?
Guardian UK Jan 15, 2008
Read Article...

 NEVER,NEVER lose contact with your young children,just read the paragraphs below !! Send them your phone number buried in the middle of a cd rom (disc),written on a doll,written in invisible ink on a seemingly innocent postcard,or simply whispered in their ears at a suitable moment.

Alternatively if your name is Jane for example,register an easy email address (eg)  mumjane@aol.com  Any child old enough to send an email will then be able to contact you no matter where you are or where they are! If the child has no easy access to a computer ,then a visit for "study purposes' to any public library will also allow free use of one of their computers to send emails free of charge ! 

If on the other hand your baby or toddler is being snatched insist on breastfeeding a baby as this gives you extra contact.

http: //www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/850.html

Citation: BLD 160403280; [2003] EWHC 850 (Admin).
Hearing Date: 15 April 2003
Court: Administrative Court.
Judge: Munby J.

Abstract.

"Per curiam. If the state, in the guise of a local authority, seeks to remove a baby from his parents at a time when its case against the parents has not yet even been established, then the very least the state can do is to make generous arrangements for contact, those arrangements being driven by the needs of the family and not stunted by lack of resources. Typically, if this is what the parents want, one will be looking to contact most days of the week and for lengthy periods. Local authorities also had to be sensitive to the wishes of a mother who wants to breast-feed, and should make suitable arrangements to enable her to do so, and not merely to bottle-feed expressed breast milk. Nothing less would meet the imperative demands of the European Convention on Human Rights."...

Published Date
16/04/2003

This case establishes the right of the mother to breastfeed,and is often ignored both by SS and judges!

Fight for parents,grandparents,aunts,uncles,and cousins all to have contact  under the Human Rights Act.  (see section "get your children back")

Children of all ages even those as young as 6 or 7 years old for example ,can go to any public phone box and call parents reverse charges if they are quietly told how to do this,explained as follows:-

Dial 100 from any private phone or public call box and you will be offered 4 options(choices) Choose option4 which asks if you want to speak to an operator.You then ask the operator for a call reversing the charges. The operator will then ask you for your name and the number you are calling.(this must be to a fixed line not a mobile)Your mother or father will then say ok they accept the call and no money is needed from you, the child who is calling! If your children are still with you or at least in contact get them to practice telephoning you reverse charge so that if the worst does happen and they are removed then contact is NEVER lost !!  Remember also that if no court order forbids you expressly and specifically from contacting the children there is nothing to stop you seeing them when they come out of school (even nursery school!). 

Remember that all children "in care" have "personal education plans"that the SS are supposed to share with you.If you know where the school is you know where your child is !Ask the local education authorities(NOT the SS !) for a copy of these plans and ask also to be put on their mailing list so you can continue to follow  your children's progress even after they have been snatched ! If you are not sure how to do this,call Pauline,a mother who knows how to "play the system" on 07956371132

PERSONAL EDUCATION PLAN FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN PUBLIC CARE - Guidance for Completion

 

Responsibilities

 

Social Workers will have the responsibility for initiating the planning process and integrating it with the Care Plan

Designated teachers must ensure that each child in Public Care has a PEP and will have responsibility for completing and monitoring it

 

Completing the PEP (SCS81) – before the meeting

 

Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be completed by the Social Worker.

 

The Plan should then be sent to the designated teacher and a time and venue agreed for an initial meeting

 

Whom to invite – the Social Worker should normally invite the foster carer or residential keyworker and parents, unless there are significant reasons why one or other parent should not attend, following the same guidance and rationale for LAC reviews.  In exceptional circumstances other interested adults could be invited, but care should be taken to keep the number of adults to a minimum.

 

The designated teacher will then select the most appropriate member of staff to complete the Plan and attend the meeting.

 

Prior to the meeting, consideration should be given to the young person’s strengths, achievements and ambitions.  The young person’s views are central to this section and they should be given support to express them.

 

Prior to the meeting, consideration should also be given to the young person’s priority educational needs/actions, which should be specific and time-related.  The PEP should make connections with, but not duplicate, other plans.  Where specific targets have been identified in pre-existing plans, these can be incorporated into the PEP.

 

 

Completing the PEP – detailed notes

 

Section 5          This can be completed before the meeting, by the designated teacher

If you know the school, you know how to contact your children when they come out ! If "ss" have already cut your contact, you can STILL meet your children when they come out from school unless a court order or injunction expressly forbids you to do so ;in which case send a relative or friend !

Above all do not lose heart if the "SS"decide to snatch your babies or your children.Because it is so important,let me repeat what I said earlier! Social Workers are NOT police! They have no authority to give you orders and most of their threats are PURE BLUFF !! Disregard their threats to "take your children",or if they already have them ,to "stop contact" if you do not obey their orders.If they have reached the stage of threatening you THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MINDS.If you obey them it will just make their task easier. They will break their word and take your children ,or stop your contact  later even if you have "cooperated" by doing everything they ask! They will then just regard you with contempt as a "pushover" and you will lose your children for good !You have no need to obey these petty tyrants unless they have a court order!Nevertheless, I beg you ,please do not let arrogant social workers provoke you into anger or violence so they can later claim you were "unstable". Do however continually remind them that their duty is to help keep families together not split them up. Politely insist that they always treat you with respect and dignity and that they do NOT make angry threats !.Do not get angry with them,show instead that YOU control the situation and  please do not get flustered or even the slightest bit worried if they "lose their cool" and get angry with you !Quietly oppose them them in your home,fight them hard in the courts and never never give up ! Believe me, in the end you CAN WIN !!

Sunday Mail August 27 2006 - Care home girl abused by 25 men in 2 years - A 14-year-old girl placed in a council children's home was prostituted to a group of depraved middle-aged men because staff were powerless to stop her going out. The horrific story of 'Becky' is highlighted in a BBC programme presented by Fiona Bruce this week which reveals how she was sexually abused by 25 men over two years - despite being known to social services and having been placed on the Child Protection Register. 

  Source: Daily Mail Published: 27th August 2006  

 "Even when she was put in a children's home - six months after her earliest allegations of abuse -staff allowed her to be used as a prostitute for fear their intervention might infringe her human rights."

7 children 'may be buried at Jersey care home'
By Caroline Gammell in St Martin, Jersey
Daily Telegraph, 26 Feb 2008

The bodies of at least seven children may be buried at a former care home in what police fear is one of the worst instances of child abuse in Britain.

The remains of a skeleton were discovered on Saturday under the concrete floor of Haut de la Garenne in Jersey.

Specialist teams using sniffer dogs and radar equipment flown in from the mainland have identified at least six other locations at the site where bodies are suspected to have been concealed.

Murder detectives now believe they have uncovered the first physical evidence of a child abuse scandal that could rank among the worst ever at a British institution.

Last night there were claims that decades of abuse at the children's home had been covered up for many years by Jersey officials. Police fear the abuse - sexual, physical and psychological - could date back as far as the 1940s and '50s. They are now scouring records of missing children.

When the inquiry was made public last November, more than 140 people came forward to tell of their harrowing experiences.

Victims claimed they had been savagely beaten, indecently assaulted and raped by staff. There were accounts of children being punched in the head, flogged with canes and kept in solitary confinement.

The NSPCC received four times more calls over this inquiry than any other previous appeal.

Three former residents told police that children they knew at Haut de la Garenne had disappeared.

As a result, police teams began searching the large brick building - now a youth hostel - last Tuesday.

The investigation was prompted by police officers who realised that several former employees at the home were being investigated over alleged child abuse.

Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper, who is leading the investigation, said the testimonies of former residents could not be ignored.

Mr Harper said a dog specialising in tracing human remains picked up a scent in a corridor on the ground floor.

When officers dug up the concrete, they found the partial remains, believed to be a skull, fragments of fabric, a button and what they thought could be a hair clasp.

Scientists will take several days to identify the gender and DNA evidence may be too decomposed. However, the body is thought to be of a child, aged 11 to 15, dating from the 1980s.

Mr Harper said the dog had identified another six areas where bodies could have been buried at the property.

The findings seemed to be corroborated by the radar equipment. Searches are expected to last another two weeks.

"There are six other areas, half inside and half outside," he said. "Some of the areas may be linked."

When asked about the number of bodies he expected to find, he said: "There could be six or more, but it could be higher than that, depending on what happens over the next few days.

"The radar has tended to show that where the dog has picked up the scent of something, there appears to be some sort of disturbance under the ground, either holes or gaps - disturbed earth."

Police also want to re-examine bones found on the property five years ago which, when discovered, were assumed to be from an animal.

However, they cannot currently be traced, he said.

The latest finding follows a series of scandals during the 1990s.

An inquiry was held in 1990 into abuse at children's care homes in Staffordshire, dubbed the Pin Down scandal after the rooms the youngsters were locked in for weeks.

In 1996, an inquiry looked into allegations of hundreds of cases of abuse in care homes in Clwyd and Gwynedd, Wales, between 1974 and 1990.

In 1997, the NSPCC completed an inquiry into a council home in Sunderland called Witherwack House.

The inquiry named 23 men and women who had physically and sexually assaulted children during the 1970s and 1980s.

However, the Jersey case involves allegations of abuse of a horrifying new level. The former children's home was founded in 1850 as a Victorian establishment for boys.

Towards the end of the 20th century, it catered for 60 children at a time and girls were introduced.

Haut de la Garenne closed in 1986 and lay empty for almost two decades.

During this time, the property was used as the police station for the television detective series Bergerac.

In 2004, it was turned into a 100-bed youth hostel.

Several local inhabitants recalled that the children mainly stayed inside Haut de la Garenne.

A farmer, who did not want to be named, said: "People have been surprised. We didn't think that was going on here."

Jersey's Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, said he was determined that "whoever committed this outrage should be swiftly found and brought to justice".
-------------------------

Social Services do NOT have the power they pretend to have over you and your children ! They rely almost entirely on threats and on BLUFF !! If they admit they have no power to stop a 14 year old in their care from working as a prostitute for 2 years,they certainly cannot stop children in care from phoning their parents, meeting them,or visiting them for a meal as long as they return to the fosterers or care home afterwards!

Do not be bluffed by social workers or even your own useless solicitors! If they tell you are not allowed by law to show your documents to anybody else tell them they are years out of date!Section 62 ,(para 251 explanatory notes), of the children Act 2004 allows you to show your documents and discuss your case in detail including names with as many individuals as you like! You are however still forbidden to reveal to the press,the public or sections of the public any information that might help identify the children concerned.Tell family ,friends,advisers, and any other individuals anything you like no matter what bossy social workers and expensive lawyers might tell you !! 

Section 62: Publication of material relating to legal proceedings

The Children Act 2004 (para 251 explanatory notes)     Section 62(1) amends section 97 of the Children Act 1989 to make clear that the publication of material from family proceedings which is intended, or likely, to identify any child as being involved in such proceedings (or the address or school of such a child) is only prohibited in relation to publication of information to the public or any section of the public. This section will make the effect of section 97 less prohibitive by allowing disclosure of such information in certain circumstances. In effect, this means that passing on information identifying, or likely to identify, a child (his school or his address) as being involved in court proceedings to an individual or a number of individuals would not generally be a criminal offence .

Legal aid lawyers in the "family courts" are for good reason known in the trade as "professional losers". Most of them collect a hefty fee for advising you not to resist social services,but to go along with all they say! Often they tell you there is no need for you to go to court at all, and if you do go they refuse to let you speak whilst they agree to surrender to the care orders and/or adoption placements demanded by the "SS"! So my advice is, if your solicitor or barrister stops you speaking in court or advises abject surrender to SS demands, sack them and REPRESENT YOURSELF !! At least then you will be able to put your own point of view to the court and will be able to ask awkward questions of social workers and their so called "experts".

Don't believe me? Look at this early day motion at present before parliament !

Several single mothers I have advised had lawyers who lost every case for them but when later they represented themselves they WON !! Some of them are quite willing to help you and explain by phone how they did it!

Samantha Walsh 07947468240,or 02086591901, 

Samantha Jackson 07514099583

Lonia,07707333804 .or Lonia29@yahoo.com

 are just 3 of many !

----- Original Message -----

From: ian@monaco.mc

To: Daniel Braddick

Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 6:48 PM

Subject: Re: Emailing: Section 20 Jackson Pg1 001, Section 20 Jackson Pg 2 001, Section 20 Theo Pg 1 001, Section 20

 

l

Links to similar sites include:-

www.fassit.co.uk

www.stopinjusticenow.com

www.paroc.org.uk 

www.unity- injustice.com

www.uktrackers.co.uk

www.parentsagainst injustice.org.uk

www.pafaa.org.uk

    

The section listed in one of the small boxes at the top of this page, "Get your children back" tells you in easy steps exactly how to write a convincing statement for the court using a very simple template plus the bullet points that are applicable in your case.Please use these aids and also all the other information on this site to give yourself the confidence,the morale,and the fighting spirit to make sure you have the best possible chance of success in the family courts.!As to how to tackle social workers and the like.....Please read on and you will come to "The 8 Golden rules"

These will show you the best way to deal not only with social workers, but also with health  visitors  ,"experts",therapists, psychologists ,psychiatrists , "professionals," "Mystic Meg" and in effect the complete unholy rabble of bossy social service bureaucrats and moneyhungry charlatans !

http://eutruth.org.uk/fi2 garvey.pdf

Who are these people really?

 The whole collection of judges,lawyers ,social workers, and so called "experts" giving evidence in secret family courts closely resembles one of those fanatical American religious sects ! Any hapless parent that contradicts them and declares their innocence of any wrongdoing is "in denial" !Any suspicion a parent raises that these people are dishonest or untruthful is taken as a sign of paranoia!Any anger or hatred exhibited by parents towards those who have taken their children is "diagnosed" as a "personality disorder" and "anger management courses" are advised!Nobody can sensibly question religious extremists and fanatics and that is how it is in the secret family courts.The words of social workers and "EXPERTS" are always believed in preference to those of the parents. Thousands of children and worse still new born babies are routinely removed to meet government "adoption targets" on feeble pretexts such as "risk of emotional abuse" In the UK this is the greatest and most shocking scandal of out times!

The expert as judge and jury
After a host of miscarriages of justice based on discredited expert witnesses, calls are growing for radical reform of their use in court
writes Lois Rogers
The Sunday Times, November 18, 2007

Yet another woman was sent to prison last week, following expert evidence that she had shaken to death a baby in her care. Keran Henderson, a 42-year-old childminder, was said to have killed 11- month-old Maeve Sheppard, by shaking her so violently she was left blind and brain-damaged. The infant died in hospital a few days later.
The case has grim echoes of those of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel, all of whom were accused of killing their children only to be found innocent later. Clark, a solicitor, who was released from prison after serving three years, died last March as a result of psychological trauma and alcoholism caused by her ordeal.

At the Court of Appeal, two days after the judgment on Henderson, a retrial was ordered in the case of Barry George, the loner convicted of killing the television personality Jill Dando in 1999 with a single shot to the head. Expert testimony as to the significance of a particle of gunshot matter in his pocket is being challenged.
There has also been the recent conviction of the true killer of schoolgirl Lesley Molseed, 32 years after the event – and after Stefan Kiszko had served 16 years for the sexually motivated killing, even though medical evidence could have pointed out his infertility proved his innocence. Once again the review of the evidence threw a spotlight on the role of expert witnesses, whose testimony is often crucial in criminal cases but can be unreliable.
Our blind faith in scientific opinion makes us reluctant to question pronouncements by “experts”, but while the law requires everyone from plumbers to nurses to be trained, registered and checked, there is no such requirement for witnesses who may be pronouncing on matters of life and death in court.
A study by senior barrister Penny Cooper of City University in London, has shown that the majority of lawyers and judges do not bother to check the qualifications of experts they approach to bolster an aspect of their case. She also found a substantial number of the expert witnesses had undergone no training to understand their legal duty.
The disquiet this arouses has led to a clamour for legislation to require expert witnesses to be regulated. But how to do that without calling into question thousands of court decisions will not be an easy task.
There is already acute unease over the proliferation of parents convicted of causing cot deaths, shaking babies to death, or harming them by creating symptoms of fictitious illness.

Henderson, for instance, a mother of two herself, a long-term childminder and stalwart volunteer of her local Beaver Scout group, was sentenced to three years in prison for shaking baby Maeve so violently that she was left with fatal brain damage, despite the fact there was no evidence of any “grip marks” on the child, which would normally be expected to accompany such an action.
Her husband, a former police officer, has said she will appeal and hopes to create a campaign similar to that run by Sally Clark’s family, to try to prove his wife’s innocence.
Many character witnesses spoke up for Henderson in court and the family has dozens of supporters in their home village of Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire.
Some even believe her prosecution was only pursued because of the successful appeal by Roy Meadow, the expert paediatrician whose evidence led to the conviction of Sally Clark.
Following the Clark case, in which Meadow quoted a completely erroneous statistic suggesting the chances of Clark’s babies having died naturally were one in 73m, he was struck off by the General Medical Council (GMC) for misconduct. The Court of Appeal agreed he had acted in good faith.
In the meantime, Alan Williams, the Home Office pathologist who conducted post-mortems on Clark’s two infant sons, was less lucky. His appeal against a GMC finding of serious professional misconduct was rejected. Williams was accused of tailoring his diagnoses of the nature of the babies’ deaths to fit the police case against Clark.
The GMC is currently hearing a claim of gross professional misconduct against paediatrician Dr David Southall. The council has received evidence alleging that Southall falsified his curriculum vitae.
Southall’s evidence has figured highly in at least 50 criminal cases and possibly hundreds of family court cases held in secret, which have led to children being removed from their parents.
Questions of how frequently babies really are shaken to death, and indeed if it is possible to do so, have divided medical opinion for some years. There have, however, been up to 200 convictions annually for related forms of violence against babies and young children.
After Clark, Cannings and Patel, another bizarre case was overturned. Ian and Angela Gay, who had been convicted of poisoning their three-year-old adopted son with salt, were cleared when it was revealed the boy was suffering from a rare, and fatal, congenital abnormality.
Recently, the attorney-general ordered a review of almost 300 criminal convictions and 30,000 family court proceedings where children were taken into care. Only four were referred to the Court of Appeal. This, according to critics, was a function of the way the review was done, with authorities being asked to review their own decisions.
Social workers say the crusade to root out dangerous adults is to some extent a reaction to a previous era of regular criticism of their profession when children were left to die at the hands of their parents. Although some acknowledge the pendulum may now have swung too far, others are furious: “Do people think we spend all our time trying to break up families for no good reason?” said John Coughlan, a joint-president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. “In comparison with the volume of cases, the number of errors is tiny. We never rely on expert witnesses alone.”
Others argue that the opinion of expert witnesses is often the decisive factor. And as we have seen most recently with Barry George, it is not just child murder cases that have turned on such evidence.
Last year the Home Office took the unprecedented step of holding a disciplinary tribunal against Michael Heath, one of its most senior forensic pathologists: 20 charges against him were upheld. One man was subsequently cleared of murder, and numerous other convictions have been called into question.
A spate of other convictions came from evidence supplied by Paula Lannas, another Home Office forensic specialist who was the subject of a long-delayed disciplinary hearing that collapsed because those investigating her said they had a conflict of interest. Not only has Lannas been deprived of an opportunity to clear her name, but dozens of prisoners who claim they were victims of her errors have been unable to get the evidence reviewed.
Police forensic scientist Peter Ablett, who is now chief executive of the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, points out there are only three ways to prove a crime: a reliable eyewitness, a confession, or forensics. The advent of DNA technology and other advances in recent years has brought increasing reliance on forensics, yet only about 3,000 of the estimated 8,000 expert witnesses operating are members of the council and signed up to its code of practice.
He said many of those who are not are unaware that their duty is to give impartial evidence to the court, not to bolster the case of their paymaster.
City University’s Cooper, who is also a governor of the Expert Witness Institute, was concerned to discover during her research that not only have one in five experts undergone no training to understand this duty, but one in 10 was so arrogant they said they saw no need for it. “There should be a requirement for them to be trained, and there should be rules requiring judges and lawyers to consider their credentials before accepting them as expert witnesses,” she said.
Such a provision cannot come soon enough.
A review is still going on of 700 cases in which bogus forensic scientist Gene Morrison gave evidence. Morrison, 48, from Manchester who was sentenced to five years for fraud in February, admitted he pretended to be an expert witness and bought his qualifications on the internet because it “seemed easier” than getting real ones.
For many of the genuinely qualified experts, legal work isa lucrative sideline, and if they are perceived to be able to “tailor” their evidence convincingly, the commissions keep flowing in. John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning about the misuse of medical evidence, says fees for a basic written opinion, based on reading through existing files, start at £4,000. If the expert concludes there is a case to answer, they attract court attendance fees as well.
“I have known experts get as much as £28,000 for one report,” said Hemming, who is lobbying for experts to be required to produce the scientific publications on which their opinion is based: “Unless we start using evidence-based evidence in court, we will get nowhere.” 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/12/15/pain- of-social-work-sex-slur-family-89520-20253085/

www.bracknell- forest.gov.uk/prebirth-protocol-july- 2005.pdf

Parents are routinely sent to prison if they reveal details of how their children were confiscated and given for adoption by strangers by "establishment judges" in centres of torture and despair known as "the family courts".

Guilty of child abuse!
(Well, our version.)
Camilla Cavendish
Source: The Times, August 23 2007

For a brief time this week, until it was taken down, there was an extraordinary posting on YouTube. It was a covert recording, made by a 34-year-old mother, of her meeting with the social worker who wants to take her next baby into care.

Had it been staged, critics would have called it a caricature. A robotic official orders the sobbing mother to stay in the hospital until his colleagues come to remove her new baby. He refuses her desperate pleas to be monitored with the baby at home. He explains in the tones of a traffic warden the inconvenience of delivering her breast milk. He then lets drop an astonishing admission: that Calderdale Council is pursuing a court order despite there being “no immediate risk to your child from yourselves”. Will he say that in court? We will not know, of course, for the court will sit in secret.

 Such a chilling drama plays to our deepest fears of state tyranny. There is something wrong with the system. But posting a conversation on YouTube, out of context, is not the way to right it. The council argues that Vanessa Brookes’s recording falls foul of the Data Protection Act. Her supporters say that she is a victim of social services and justified in publishing what is essentially her own data. But we do not know whether she is a victim. Who is abusing whom here?

Mrs Brookes’s case is not straightforward. She is partially sighted and has suffered bouts of depression. Two of her children have already been adopted. That does not prove that she is an unfit mother - mistakes can be made - but it does explain the council’s interest. Equally, I am told that she and her husband have never been accused of harming any child. But this dribble of incomplete facts is fundamentally unenlightening. All it does is illustrate the torturous trade-offs that the system has to make, and our inability to judge those trade-offs because it is illegal to read family court papers.

How should we treat someone like Mrs Brookes, who has troubles enough to worry social services but has not apparently yet harmed a child? She is one of a growing group of people who are categorised as capable of “emotional abuse”. You can see why the category exists. Ill-treatment comes in many forms, not just cigarette burns. But in that nebulous phrase lurks the potential for great injustice.

 “Emotional abuse” has no strict definition in British law. Yet it now accounts for an astounding 21 per cent of all children registered as needing protection, up from 14 per cent in 1997. Last year 6,700 children were put on the child protection register for emotional abuse, compared with only 2,600 for sexual abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse. Both of the latter two categories have been falling steadily. Meanwhile emotional abuse and “neglect” - which replaced the old notion of “grave concern” in 1989 - have been rising. Both are catch-alls. But emotional abuse is especially vague. It covers children who have not been injured, have not complained, and do not come under “emotional neglect”.

The Department of Health defines emotional abuse as “persistent emotional ill-treatment . . . [which] may involve conveying to children that they are worthless or inadequate . . . and may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being placed on children . . . Some level of emotional abuse is involved in all types of ill-treatment of a child, though it may occur alone”.

Local authorities have printed their own, wildly differing, interpretations. In Enfield emotional abuse includes “swearing”, “conditional love” or “discriminatory remarks”. In Nottingham, it is “an ingrained pattern of interaction . . . which it is essential to observe and understand over time”. Under that definition, a baby could never be removed at birth. Nottingham also states that emotional abuse should rarely be a cause for removing a child. Meanwhile the NSPCC, the charity that has never knowingly undersold a statistic, states in its briefing on emotional abuse that “18 per cent of children experience humiliation and/or attacks on self- esteem”. Should we put them all in care, then?

“You’ll know it when you see it - except that you can’t see it” is no way to make law. Abuse literature repeatedly states how often parent and child are unaware of the damage done by their relationship patterns. How do we weigh that damage against the trauma of the conveyor belt of foster care? In most such situations, isn’t removing a child utterly disproportionate?

Just imagine that some social services departments were crusaders, seeing evil parents everywhere but unable to prove conventional abuse. It is plausible that the number of vague allegations would rise, backed by psychiatrists of a similar mindset who are prepared to enter a “maybe”. How else can one explain a 50 per cent rise in emotional abuse cases in ten years? How many of those cases are utterly marginal?

Next, imagine that the rise in these cases had left social workers even more overstretched. They would have less time to monitor children at home and to keep families together. They would also have less time for the hard-core cases. No system can ever protect every child. But the toddler on Haringey’s at-risk register who was found dead last week with fractured ribs, a broken back and two missing fingernails was surely more deserving of removal than those at risk of low self-esteem.

So many cases are gut-wrenchingly complex. We need social workers to be properly accountable. We need the family courts to be open. Mrs Brookes is clearly not perfect, but she deserves to have clear grounds for the removal of her child. Right now, it looks as though around 6,000 people stand accused of abuse, or potential abuse, that no lawyer can even define. That is an appalling vista that we must not continue to hide from public view.

-----------------------

The reason for this is always touted as the need to protect the children's identity at all costs!Unless of course there is money to be made by "advertising" them for adoption like pedigree dogs in magazines and newspapers with colour photos ages and first names for easy identification by the neighbours!!Here are some prices for those who are interested !

http://www.adoptionuk.com/images/Featuring%20% 20April2007.pdf

The following extract from a judgement in the House of Lords confirms that alone in Europe the UK CONTINUES to allow and encourage the barbaric practice of taking children from loving and desperate parents and giving them to strangers for closed and secret adoptions without parental consent

House of Lords - Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust .

Baroness Hale of Richmond.Judgement 

  34.  There is, so far as the parties to this case are aware, no European jurisprudence questioning the principle of freeing for adoption, or indeed compulsory adoption generally. The United Kingdom is unusual amongst members of the Council of Europe in permitting the total severance of family ties without parental consent. (Professor Triseliotis thought that only Portugal and perhaps one other European country allowed this.) It is, of course, the most draconian interference with family life possible.

 

THE GOLDEN RULES!!

 Do PLEASE remember the golden rules :- (By all means print this off and keep the copy near at hand if SS approach!Show these rules to your lawyer or social worker to prove that you KNOW your rights!)

REMEMBER THESE EVEN IF YOU FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE I HAVE ADVISED! 

1:- Never contact social services for help or advice .Usually you should not report a partner who batters you or even a stranger who sexually assaults your young child, as if you do the SS will as often as not take your children into care (and later for adoption) to "protect them" from risk !If they have your children and you are fighting to get them back,NEVER NEVER tell social workers how you think you are going to defeat them, or what you are going to do next !Remember ,without mentioning it to "them",that even if your children are "in care" social workers do not have the legal power to stop your children going to a call box to phone you or even meeting you for a meal as long as they return "home" to the fosterers afterwards! 

2:- Never believe a word they say and always insist they put their promises down in writing.Always be pleasant and polite to social workers,and remember that they may deliberately try to provoke you into shouting or violence that they will exaggerate in court leaving you with a criminal record and no children!When they shout at you forget your "pride" and look very hurt saying "why are you being like this to me?" or"I thought you were so nice until now, please don't bully me!" Be very respectful "tongue in cheek", but never follow their "helpful advice" especially if they say your only chance of getting your children back is to split from a partner, or parent you love and respect! They will try and turn you against each other as the "divide and rule" principle makes sure you are confused and demoralised when you lose your case  and your children too ! Quite often they arrange deliberately awkward contact times with your children. This can result first in the loss of your job and then as a consequence of that ,your accommodation also.Object loudly and forcefully in court to their plans and fight hard to keep your job and your house or appartment. 

3:- NEVER,NEVER,NEVER, sign any documents they present to you,even if they say "you have to!" Social Workers rely on BLUFF.In reality they have NO POWER and no right to threaten you or give you orders of any kind!Only a COURT via an order from a judge can give you orders,and you always have the opportunity to contest those orders in court either before or after they are given to you.No matter what threats,or promises they make ,you can be 100% sure that if you get intimidated into signing they will break their word and expect you to keep your's! so, DO NOT SIGN !! 

 4:-Never, never agree to let your children go into foster care (especially if they say it is temporary) Never "agree" the thresholds even if you are advised that this will ensure the return of your children,because if you do you will have admitted neglecting or abusing your child and the only question left will be to decide if you have really repented and are capable of "change"! Usually the answer is no !Sometimes your own lawyer may tell you to agree the thresholds and/or agree to an interim care order otherwise "you will never see your children again !"That is a wicked lie designed to save the lawyers work and to help you LOSE your children ! BEWARE ! 

5:-Never answer questions at case meetings , in court, or when you are being assessed by so called "experts,"(psychiatrists,therapists,psychologists,  counsellors,professionals, and the like) with more than 5 or 6 words (they write down anything unhelpful you may let slip). Try indeed to answer "yes" or "no" whenever possible . Never explain or elaborate as this only gives extra material to those who wish to discredit you.

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 a document from  the court such as a "recovery order" specifically allowing entry using reasonable force .Unless they have good reason to believe someone in the house is in danger of severe physical harm police also would have to have 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 as follows:-

"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 persons who might obtain my medical details without my express authorisation".

8:-Never write a letter to anyone connected to Social Services as you might include something that could damage your case in the family court.Only accept a solicitor if he/she promises to allow you a free hand to speak in court! You should be asked this simple question in the witness box "Have you anything you would like to say to the court?"Without this promise you may be "gagged" and you can lose your case without being allowed to say a word! 

And YES! They really,really do make up false evidence as "The Times" points out.............

 The Times October 19, 2006 - Blind justice without a name -Camilla Cavendish - If social workers really are manufacturing evidence in child abuse cases, their anonymity is assured Read article...

And YES some people are making a fortune out of the misery of others !

The Guardian - March 28, 2007 - by Lucy Ward - Concern over vulnerable children placed in isolating care homes - Councils are paying up to £6,000 a week to place children with extreme and complex needs in "one-person children's homes" without any proof that this will help them. Read Article...

http://www.opsi .gov.uk/si/si2005/20052795.htm  is a link to a comprehensive summary of the laws governing family court proceedings and adoption in particular.

FREE LEGAL ADVICE: ian@monaco.mc 

TEL:-0033-626875684

If you phone me on my mobile (LEAVE YOUR NUMBER IF THERE IS NO REPLY) I will phone you back from my fixed line at my own expense to any phone box or fixed line or even a mobile if neither of these are possible I promise to talk to you as long as is needed and to give the best advice I can. 

THE SITUATION NOW

YOUR NEWBORN BABY IS IN DANGER  !!

In October 2005 more than 200 MPs from all parties signed a motion(EDM869) proposed by Eric Pickles MP calling for an end to the secrecy of the family courts.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ls.aspx?EDMID=29194&SESSION=875

THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH:-MP bids to lift secrecy in family courts

By Ben Leapman and Andrew Alderson

A legal bid to lift the secrecy surrounding children taken from parents and put up for adoption has been launched by an MP. John Hemming claims to have details of 90 cases where mistakes were made in family courts, whose hearings are held behind closed doors. He has applied to the High Court for permission to pass details to watchdogs -- including the General Medical Council, Solicitors' Regulatory Authority and the Bar Council. If turned down, he is threatening to disclose the information in the Commons under Parliamentary privilege. Mr Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, said: "We know that there are cases where children are wrongly removed from their parents and put up for adoption. This, however, is far more common than people think. It is important for an MP to be able to speak about injustice. " The Sunday Telegraph revealed last week that judges, senior lawyers and politicians have relaunched attempts to open up family court proceedings to more scrutiny - even though Lord Falconer seemed to have crushed the move less than three weeks ago, shortly before stepping down as Lord Chancellor. Campaigners said they have renewed hopes of bringing about change under Gordon Brown's Government. The current law means reporters or members of the public cannot attend family court hearings, see documents, review evidence or obtain copies of judgments. Last week's article led to a huge response from readers. One, who wrote in anonymously, said a female relative took her daughter into hospital only to be accused of abusing the girl. The accusation led to a second child, born weeks later, being taken into care almost at birth. The mother was cleared of abuse but the children have not been returned because they are "settled". Sarah Harman, sister of Harriet, the Labour Party deputy leader, and others formed Families Action for Court Transparency and Openness (Facto) three years ago in an attempt to open up the family courts system. Other leading figures have backed the campaign, including Lord Justice Wall, a senior Court of Appeal judge. He believes that allowing the media to report proceedings would help rebut accusations that the family justice system was secretive. "I find it unacceptable that conscientious magistrates and judges should be accused of administering 'secret justice'." Family courts in England and Wales hear 400,000 cases a year, mostly divorces and child custody cases. However, in some 20,000 cases a year, local councils apply to remove children from parents on the grounds that they are abusive of neglectful. Concerns over secrecy were heightened two weeks ago by the case of the Webster family from Cromer, Norfolk. Mark Webster, 34, and wife, Nicky, 26, were told they could keep their fourth child Brandon, aged 13 months. The couple fled to Ireland to have him after claiming they were wrongly accused of child abuse and had their first three children taken into care four years ago and later adopted. Norfolk county council withdrew proceedings to take Brandon into care after conceding that injuries to one of the couple's other children might have been caused by vitamin deficiencies. The authority said it no longer relied on evidence which suggested that leg fractures were caused by abuse. New figures show that more than half of all children taken into care below the age of five end up being adopted. Statistics released by the Department for Children, Schools and Families show that last year, 4,160 under-fives were taken into care, while 2,490 were adopted. Critics claim that targets set by Tony Blair to increase the number of adoptions, intended to cut the number of children languishing in foster care, have given social workers a perverse incentive to seize more children, a claim strongly disputed by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering. Do you know of a victim of injustice resulting from the secrecy in the family courts system? If so, please email us at stnews@telegraph.co.uk We will not identify individuals without their consent and will publish only those details permitted under law.

Look at this statement made in parliament by the secretary of state for health !!

Jacqui Smith [holding answer 9 April 2003]: .......... 

The Government's priority is to increase the number of children adopted from care while not compromising the quality and stability of adoptive placements. The most effective measure of performance is to deliver adoptive placements that last and that are properly supported...................

Adopters want BABIES or Toddlers not older children !

LOTS OF MONEY TO BE MADE BY ADOPTION AGENCIES TOO !!Local authorities that do not snatch enough children to meet their "adoption targets" get into trouble ! 

SEE THIS ARTICLE FROM THE TELEGRAPH!

'Shaming' policy on adoption attacked

By Nicole Martin

 

THE Government's decision to highlight eight local councils with poor adoption records was criticised yesterday. John Hutton, the health minister, named the councils in Barnet, Lambeth, Slough, Newham, Peterborough, Coventry, Northamptonshire and Torbay as targets for a new adoption task force. But adoption agencies and social services said the "naming and shaming" approach could be detrimental to the 5,000 children waiting to be adopted in Britain. Felicity Collier, chief executive of the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, said that the policy could worsen the recruitment shortage in social services, where a fifth of posts remain vacant. She said: "What really concerns me is that if I was an adopter and I lived in one of the areas that the Department of Health announces is lagging behind the pack, adoption might look unappealing." Moira Gibb, president elect of the Association of Directors of Social Services, welcomed the task force but doubted the effectiveness of identifying authorities. Mr Hutton denied that the Government was "naming and shaming". He said: "There is a steady rise in adoptions. But we have to keep the momentum going. The task force will help by identifying barriers to change and supporting those councils that need help."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/18/nchild318.xml

The following was a parliamentary question to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what targets have been set for local authorities by central Government regarding adoption; and when each target was introduced.

Parmjit Dhanda (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills) | Hansard source

The Government have set a number of targets on adoption, in particular to increase the numbers of looked after children who are adopted from care.

The following target was included in the Department of Health publication "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The Next Three Years (Priorities and Planning Framework 2003-2006)":

"Maintain current levels of adoption placement stability (as measured by the proportion of placements for adoption ending with the making of an adoption order) so that quality is not compromised whilst increasing the use of adoption as follows:

By 2004-05 increase by 40 per cent. the number of looked after children who are adopted, and aim to exceed this by achieving, if possible, a 50 per cent. increase by 2006, up from 2,700 in 1999-2000. All councils will bring their practice up to the current level of the best performers.

By 2004-05 increase to 95 per cent. the proportion of looked after children placed for adoption within 12 months of the decision that adoption is in the child's best interests, up from 81 per cent. in 2000-01, and maintain this level (95 per cent.) up to 2006, by locally applying the timescales in the National Adoption Standards, taking account of the individual child's needs."

Already more than 20 MPs  from all parties have signed the more recent motion proposed by John Hemming MP:(EDM 626)

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ls.aspx?EDMID=32301&SESSION=885

 

That this House notes that local authorities and their staff are incentivised to ensure that children are adopted; is concerned about increasing numbers of babies being taken into care, not for the safety of the infant, but because they are easy to get adopted; and calls urgently for effective scrutiny of care proceedings to stop this from happening.

Just look at this announcement by the borough of Bromley !!

And another motion raised in Parliament:-

 Public Service Agreement - Adoption

The London Borough of Bromley and the Government  made a Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) for the three years, April 2002 to March 2005, to further improve services to local people. Adoption was one of thirteen service areas to be awarded extra funding - £93,000 over the three years - to meet or exceed the Government's target of improving the numbers of children adopted from public care by 50%. Where a service area is successful in meeting the agreed target the Council will receive £0.5 million in additional funding.

What did this mean for us in Bromley?

In 2004/05 18 children needed to be adopted from care to meet the agreed target.

To achieve these targets we had to recruit more adopters to meet the needs of the increased numbers of children requiring adoptive families. This was  to be achieved through additional recruitment by the Bromley Adoption Team and through membership of the Adoption South East Consortium (consisting of five other local authorities).

  THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION: -  After 17 children have been successfully adopted in Bromley,and if your child is 18th in line to be considered,your precious child will also be very very precious to Bromley as it will be worth £500,000 to the borough to make sure he/she is adopted !!

YOU ARE NOT ALONE   !!

Key adoption targets missed (Official government papers)

 

  

More than 60,000 children are "in care" of the State.Thousands of these have been taken from loving parents not for anything that has happened to them, but because "experts" said one day something might happen.As a result,every year, thousands of children and newborn babies have been ordered by secret family courts(no public admitted)  to be  removed  to avoid future risk of physical, or more often "emotional abuse". (a vague accusation impossible to disprove).Unlike any other court parents have to prove their innocence against accusations and worse still predictions by "professionals" and "experts"If they fail to do this(and usually they do fail to disprove these forecasts) they lose their children.

More than 700 babies and young  children are taken every year from the few parents who manage to pluck up the courage to go to court and fight ! Once there they despairingly beg stern unbending family court judges to let them keep their own children. The judges in the secret family courts however inevitably respond  by threatening parents with prison if they reveal to anybody details of proceedings in the secret family courts.The identity of the children must be protected at all costs they say with an intimidating judicial frown ! They follow up this stricture by authorising social services to advertise the unfortunate babies and toddlers as "adoption candidates" in magazines like "adoption UK" and on the internet on sites such as "www.ukkids.info "like pedigree dogs,with large colour photographs ,first names, dates of birth and character descriptions for easy identification by "the neighbours". These children are finally given away via "forced adoption" to anonymous strangers for the rest of their lives.

MOST OF THESE FAMILY COURT JUDGES SHOULD BE SENT TO PRISON themselves to pay for their crimes ,but in fact a parliamentary question recently revealed that these renegade family judges regularly send more than 200 people a year to prison in strict secrecy with no public hearing at all !.The judges are the real criminals not the hapless and helpless parents !All this is happening in the UK right now !! Read on for details and proof. 

A typical mother who successfully challenged social services is happy to support anyone who has had their children taken away!Just ring Lonia(new number) at Tel:- 07707333804 or email at lonia29@yahoo.com.  

Every story,every legal quotation, and every statistic I quote has been carefully checked and verified from official government published figures,acts of parliament,published judgements from actual cases,and articles in reputable newspapers such as the Times or TV programmes such as "The real story"

In 1926 the first "Adoption Act"was passed legalising the concept of adoption in the UK,the parent's consent could be dispensed with if those parents could not be found ,had abandoned the child,or who were plainly mentally incapable.This dispensation happened very rarely.The vast majority of adoptions concerned mothers who were not married and who were persuaded by parents to give up their babies to avoid the "terrible disgrace" that this was at the time.

In 1976 the second "Adoption Act" was passed allowing secret family courts to order the adoption of children and even newborn babies against the express wishes of their parents.A barbaric measure unique in Europe that was to cause more misery to both parents and children in the UK than any other laws passed in the last 2 or 3 hundred years !Since then "Acts" have been passed in 1989 and 2002 that have facilitated and speeded up this appalling forced adoption process.In the year 2000 Tony Blair called for a 40% increase in adoption figures (supposedly to stop children languishing in care) and targets were set for local authorities throughout the UK. As a result of all this , record numbers of loving parents have seen their children and especially newborn babies(the best adoption material) literally stolen to fuel the adoption industry.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml? xml=/opinion/2005/08/30/do3002.xml

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/text/print.ht ml? in_article_id=432957&in_page_id=1879

In France,Spain and other continental countries social services only remove children from their families if there is clear evidence of physical or sexual abuse suffered by children at the hands of other family members.

 Remember what the House of Lords had to say ? 

The following extract from a judgement in the House of Lords confirms that alone in Europe the UK CONTINUES to allow and encourage the barbaric practice of taking children from loving and desperate parents and giving them to strangers for closed and secret adoptions without parental consent

House of Lords - Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust .

Baroness Hale of Richmond.Judgement 

  34.  There is, so far as the parties to this case are aware, no European jurisprudence questioning the principle of freeing for adoption, or indeed compulsory adoption generally. The United Kingdom is unusual amongst members of the Council of Europe in permitting the total severance of family ties without parental consent. (Professor Triseliotis thought that only Portugal and perhaps one other European country allowed this.) It is, of course, the most draconian interference with family life possible.

"Emotional abuse" as a concept is simply unknown and so is using the threat of "risk" as an excuse to take children from their families and give them to strangers.Compulsory adoption of children taken from parents who are begging in court to keep them is practically unknown in Continental Europe where this cruel and abusive UK practice is regarded as little short of horrific! 

In the UK (and also North America) the SS ask compliant judges in SECRET family courts to authorise the (often permanent)  removal of children whom they consider to be merely "at risk" of either "physical abuse "or that ever so vague concept " emotional abuse"Most of our family court judges should themselves BE SENT TO PRISON for these "crimes aganst humanity !. OUR Social Workers,like gypsies claim to forsee the future,and based on their forecasts, often backed up by highly paid "experts" boasting the same gift of foresight, children and even newborn babies are brutally removed and given for adoption to strangers thus avoiding this "risk".Parents who are naturally angry and upset when their children have been taken are often declared to be emotionally unstable. Such parents  of course cannot defend themselves against these expert "forecasts".Criminals are punished for crimes they have committed,whilst UK parents (and their children) are punished (often for life) for faults that social services believe that they might commit in the future!!NO WONDER IN EUROPE THEY THINK OUR SOCIAL SERVICES ARE COMPLETELY CRAZY !!  

In the UK even perfect mothers are at risk of having their babies snatched at birth.Social Services only have to find some  allegedly violent incident in the past of the baby's father and the mother loses her baby to the adoption industry even when in many cases she knew nothing of these allegations when she fell pregnant. More often than not, the father was never charged by the police, let alone convicted of any offence.Hard to believe? Well this happens far more often than you would think! It means in effect that EVERY MOTHER IN THE UK is at risk of having their newborn baby "confiscated" by the "SS" if the father has some episode in his past that maybe the mother knew nothing about when the baby was conceived !

A couple I helped recently had their baby removed the same day it was born! The distraught mother was told that she was blameless ,but that her partner,the baby's father some years previously had been accused by his ex wife of violence towards her in a custody dispute ! No charges were ever brought by anyone but this unproved accusation was enough for the horrified mother to see her baby taken by social services with a view to adoption.After several court cases a second baby was born and threatened with the same fate so the useless lawyers were sacked and the couple represented themselves with such success that both babies were eventually returned to their care under a supervision order( which is still being contested!)

Fight every step of the way and you can win! Submit and you are doomed!

 JOANNA will tell you how she and her partner got their babies back and will advise you by telephone :-07724056999 or by email joanna_06@blueyonder.co.uk< /A>

No wonder that social workers in "child protection" are now perceived NOT as protectors but as childsnatchers who break up the very families they are mandated to cosset and preserve.They are now trained to show no pity and no remorse when they take babies at birth from mothers that have never harmed them .Social Services are unfortunately thoroughly obssessed by an urgent need to meet government adoption targets and reap financial rewards.This need supercedes all traces of  pity or compassion.Adoption is "big business" and very profitable for those who do not hesitate to deal in a murky industry where children are just a "commodity"!

"Legal aid lawyers"who often work closely with social services are waiting,only too ready to "represent" bereft parents and urge them to "cooperate" with the SS and all will be well. Alas it almost never is..... 

Talking of "legal aid lawyers", the vast majority of these highly paid and highly useless parasites are widely known as "professional losers ". They simply advise you NOT to fight the social services and to "go along" with everything the social workers tell you!For this easy and entirely useless legal advice they charge enormous fees and go home laughing, ready to fleece their next victim !

Ring Pauline on 01514756007 for her opinion of her solicitor who,faced with her determination to fight for her children, actually promised in turn to fight too . He verbally guarranteed that he would stop care orders from being put on her children at the appointed half day hearing."They haven't got nearly enough"he said!What happened next?

Of course he never even turned up in court (he sent his clerk!) .He had promised that the SS witnesses would be rigorously cross examined in court and that witness summonses would force them to attend.In fact they did not come. The Guardian sent a written statement and the SS barrister himself "reported" the support worker's opinions to the judge.No cross examination was possible but the judge believed their slanderous hearsay rather than the mother who had testified in person on oath and who also had produced an excellent "psychological" report on herself from the court appointed "expert"which described her parenting skills as first class. Pauline alas did not like or respect her social worker and for this alone,believe it or not, she lost the last 2 of her 6 children!She has no criminal record,no problems with alcohol or drugs,no learning difficulties,has a university degree and an intense repugnance for  social workers(personality disorder?)who in turn cannot understand why anyone should dislike them! They were as usual vindictive towards her because(as the judge put it)  of her "inability to work with professionals" .Her newborn baby has been taken for adoption and her 6 children split up from her and from each other.

She has wisely decided to represent herself on Appeal!She also wishes to form a support group for parents who have had their children "snatched"by social services so ring 01514756007 for mutual support.

 Samantha had 4 children removed after she ejected a rude and nosey social worker from her home(they said she must have a personality disorder!)She and her mother Philomena lost 3 cases in a row and 3 children to adoption when "represented" so when the SS threatened to take her new baby as soon as it was born she contacted me,and I advised her to represent herself.She did this successfully retaining her new baby and recovering her eldest child even after the SS appealed against her first win but Samantha still beat them again !She or her mother Philomena will advise you and tell you how they did it on 07947468340.

 Battered women (and sometimes men too!)  are now too frightened to notify the police.Not because they fear a partner's reprisals ,but because the police inevitably inform social services who arrive not to help but to confiscate their children !Also parents with mild learning difficulties, parents who let their houses get dirty( or even merely untidy on just one occasion),parents who take their child to the doctor or to hospital "too often", parents whose children are too often "late for school",parents whose children suffer minor injuries from an accident where police are either not involved or who bring no charges whatever, and even parents whose only fault is that they dare to insult or show disrespect to social workers , all run the risk of seeing their children,and even their newborn babies snatched to meet the adoption targets .

THE SITUATION NOW !

As stated earlier, more than 200 MPs think the secrecy is very wrong! 

House of Commons

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=29194&SESSION=875       

The Daily telegraph quotes "Often, concern for a child's welfare can turn into a battle between parents and social workers. Whether innocent, guilty or just struggling, parents are afraid when social services become involved in their lives. Bill Bache, Angela Cannings's solicitor, says parents view social services as "the Gestapo" and social workers know it. "Our image is of trendies in sandals who snatch babies," says one Essex child service manager"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1 657274,00.html 

University of Bristol research showed that at least 50% of parents with learning difficulties have their children snatched for fostering or adoption by social services!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4752887.stm Eric Pickles M.P exposed in parliament one appalling case where the mother was "slightly slow" and the father perfectly normal.They sucessfully brought up one child for three years but when a second baby was born SS seized both children for adoption on the grounds that even though they admitted that both children were healthy,happy,and well clothed nevertheless their welfare was paramount and they would be more likely to fulfill their potential with a more prosperous and better educated adoptive family !

What did Felicity Collier(Former head of BAAF the official adoption asociation) say in "The Guardian" in her very typical "defence" of the SS in this shocking case 

The Guardian article quoted Felicity Collier as follows:- The campaign in question was a series of articles claiming that over-zealous social workers in Essex were snatching children from families because the parents had learning disabilities. Collier is still furious about it. "The case of the parents who weren't bright enough had full judgments and it was clear that there were many reasons, and that this decision was not taken lightly," she says. "The fact is that there are people with learning disabilities that are fine parents, but there are also those for whom looking after their children is very difficult."

Please note that Felicity Collier never at any time gave ANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of the children suffering in any way when living with their parents.No denial that the eldest child was healthy and happy for 3 years in their care. Just an indignant cclaim that the seizure of the children was "justified" with no reasons why.The judgement published on the Essex Council said exactly the same ! The judge concluded that the parents could no longer cope but he never said why,which made it impossible for the parents to defend themselves since nothing specific was ever alleged against them !

JUDGMENT
Essex County Council
and
X & Y
and
A & B
(by their guardian ad litem, Ms Kennet)

Mrs Justice Pauffley handed down judgment in the above case on 8 August 2005. It related to an application by Essex County Council for orders freeing two children for adoption, A (4 years) and B (14 months). 
The judgment has been posted on HM Court Service website at the following link:
 http://www.hmcourts- service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j3252/essexcc_0805.htm

 Eric Pickles (Brentwood & Ongar, Con) Link to this | Hansard source

BBC News January 26  2007 - Babies 'removed to meet targets - Babies are being removed from their parents so that councils can meet adoption targets, MPs have claimed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6297573.stm

I REPEAT AGAIN because it is so significant that more than 20 MPs from all parties have already signed an early day motion deploring the taking of babies from their mothers not for their welfare but simply to enable social workers to meet their government adoption targets.

.http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=32301&SESSION=885

The Times December 21, 2006 - Family courts are the B-side of the law by Camilla Cavendish -  What a strange, fumbling kind of justice system it is that condemns a woman as an unfit mothe for the heinous crime of trusting her husband. Yet this is what seems to have happened in a recent case that I feel compelled to write about, even though legal restrictions force me to leave out much of the detail. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,28009- 2513335,00.html

Yes this "Times" article conclusively shows that EVERY parent in the UK could be threatened by the "SS"! Even completely blameless mothers are at risk from Social Services! If a mother dares to marry (or cohabit) with a man who has no criminal record but who has in some way "offended" social services she may have her baby snatched away at birth and given for adoption to complete strangers ! If the mother protests her innocence, as happened in the two cases above of the mother mentioned by Camilla and Joanna (green para)   she will simply be told that it is her own fault for choosing the wrong father !!

How is this for court secrecy ?  A mother similar to the one described in "the Times" article above has taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg .She and her husband have been threatened with imprisonment if they reveal any details of the proceedings in the "secret" family courts.This they were told was to protect the identity of the child. Meanwhile her baby and many other little victims have been callously advertised for adoption by social worker hypocrites in the Daily Mirror for around 3 million readers to view and select like pedigree dogs !(see the advert reproduced in the "reform" section of this site).The mother and her husband will advise other deprived mothers how to contact and apply to the European Court ;Just phone them on 02084823019.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html? in_article_id=460863&in_page_id=1879&ICO=FEMAIL&ICL=TOPA RT

Another mother who lost all her children but has succeeded in appealing to the court of human rights at Strasbourg is "Sharon" who will also help you to do the same!Her number is 01512952268 or her mobile is07877316250.

Furthermore,if one of your children suffers what the coroner rules as a TRAGIC ACCIDENT do not expect sympathy or comfort from social workers,expect instead a merciless attack !! (followed by the removal of the other children !)

Daily Mail November 23, 2006 - A DEVASTATED couple had a child taken away by social workers as their 20-month-old son lay dying in hospital. Tyler Black, who had fallen into the family pond 24 hours earlier, died the day after the other youngster was removed.The coroner attributed no blame for what he described as a tragic but not suspicious  accident.The social workers however still refused to return the surviving child to the grieving parents !!

  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 rarely 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.Anything a parent tells me is strictly confidential but if parents do want me to involve the press by way of protest I also solemnly undertake that if ever I get offered a fee by a newspaper for introducing a family or writing about parents whose children have been taken then I promise to give 100% of any money received to the family concerned and keep nothing myself.I have no wish to imitate those disgusting people who make money out of the misery of parents who have had their children snatched by Social Services!! 

I get two or three new calls from parents nearly every day and advise each one as best I can.Forgive me if I ask you to repeat details and phone numbers each time you telephone or contact me as with around 100 cases going on I need reminding of the basic facts to avoid confusing one similar case with another!  I have businesses to run so can only spare the time to fly over to the UK and go to court for parents as a "Mckenzie friend" in the very worst cases(free of charge) for mothers with no criminal records,drug or alcohol problems who have had their babies snatched at birth by Social Services.This happens more often than you would think !!I will however always find the time to give my advice by email or telephone to ANY parent who contacts me concerning a problem they have with the SS (social services)!

FREE LEGAL ADVICE: ian@monaco.mc 

TEL:-0033-626875684

IF you ring me from a fixed phone (not a mobile) and you give me the number I will ring you straight back at my expense ! If you have no phone at home any public phone box will do

I have sympathy for fathers 4 justice who are so often wrongfully denied access to their children,but it is still infinitely worse for both parents to lose a child or newborn baby to " forced adoption" since this nearly always means that they have no idea where the child is to go and usually they never see that child again for the rest of their lives ! That is why my main fight is against those wicked people who force weeping parents in court to give up their children for adoption by strangers. 

HISTORY 

This sorry story dates 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,Trevor, 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 !Young Trevor informed me that the boys were paid the sum of one shilling (5p) when required to sleep with any of their "over affectionate" teachers at this very "special" children's home! 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 !  

BBC Radio Five Live January 10  2007 -  Matthew Bannister Interviewing Von Coulter and Daughter Tammy, reunited after 17 years due to forced adoption. Listen to Interview This is an EXCEPTIONAL "eyeopener" and really worth listening to !!

WHO PROFITS FROM THE ADOPTION RACKET?

Local Authorities(stars,beacon status, and financial rewards under public service agreements .Kent for example got £21million)

Very highly paid "professionals"  presume to "assess" the parenting skills of distraught mothers who have had their children taken into care. (around £3000 per 2-3 hour session ),"legal aid lawyers" (a case in the family courts costs an average of £70,000 per day so total legal costs of over £500,000 for one case are not unusual! ,)Therapists, psychiatrists , and counsellors who are paid around £3000 for a few hours work eagerly predict that parents might "emotionally abuse" their children at some time in the future.  Tame medical experts  somehow always side with social services against the parents.(They also receive around £3000 for one afternoon session plus a report)

Foster parents(up to £400per week per child plus allowances for Xmas and holidays)Special schools charging up to £7000 per week per child(as shown on tv channel 4, Adoption and fostering agencies charging up to £18,000 per placement.

 

From The TimesMarch 28, 2007

 

Children's single-place homes can charge £6,000 per week

Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent

 

A growing number of children in care are being sent to “single-place” residential homes costing £6,000 a week with only staff for company.

 

Despite the vast weekly expense, which would cover a term’s fees at some leading public schools, employees at “single care” homes are poorly trained and less competent than those in standard residential homes, a report says.

 

The Commission for Social Care Inspection, which conducted the report, concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that children living on their own in such a home benefited from the arrangements. Indeed, they frequently suffered from severe loneliness. The homes are used typically for children with serious behavioural problems who get into fights or break furniture and so are judged too disruptive to stay in standard residential care.

 

Of 200 homes now operating, 74 per cent admit children with emotional or behavioural problems, 28 per cent accept those with learning difficulties and 7 per cent take in children with mental health problems.

 

The homes are sometimes used to give respite to parents or at times of crisis, but some children have stayed on for up to two years. Although some of the homes admit children as young as 5, most look after those of secondary school age.

 

They are mostly run by private companies, but fees are paid by local authorities, which are responsible for children in the care system. The commission called on those authorities to think more carefully before sending children in their care to live in such homes. “It may well be convenient for local authorities to place children with complex needs in these homes but the impact on the children who live there is still unclear,” Dame Denise Platt, chairwoman of the commission, said.

“While the overall number of these homes is still relatively small, there has been a growth in their number in recent years.

 

These homes can be located a long way from the child’s home community and they are extremely expensive to run, with fees of between £4,000 and £6,000 a week.”

Providers say that they have to charge the high fees to pay for highly trained staff, and a support system to make sure that there is round-the-clock care for the child.

 

However, the report said that inspections had found that staff had fewer qualifications and less training than their peers at other homes and that they were poorly monitored by senior staff. It also found that preparations for children leaving their care were inadequate.

 

The homes did score more highly over the quality of accommodation, health and safety, and security. The report said that some children liked having the undivided attention of staff, although others complained of loneliness.

 

The commission said the cost of running the homes was not as high as the fees charged but, because the homes were so scarce, providers could charge what they liked.

 

An expert on children in care who gave evidence to the commission’s inquiry said that if a body similar to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence was called in to evaluate single-place care homes, they would not be licensed for use.

 

Another expert said that in his experience, “[single-place care homes] are unable to manage the extremes of behaviour that are exhibited by this group of young people, which invariably leads to a breakdown in placement with little or no notice”.

 

Experts said that local authorities were getting better at providing care for children with mild behavioural and emotional difficulties, but many were struggling with the growing number with severe problems, often a result of alcohol and drug abuse by parents.

 

Some local authorities believed there was no value in single-place care homes, but others used them for those who could not cope with fostering or standard residential care.

 

Paying price

£6,000 A week at a single-place care home

£4,000 Term fees at Dulwich College for boys

£2,520 A week’s stay at The Ritz

£2,335 A week at a standard children’s home

£600 A week at The Priory Clinic

Sources: CSCI, Ritz, Dulwich College, Priory

 

HERE is how Kent County Council were rewarded for hitting and even surpassing their "ADOPTION TARGETS" (£21million!)

 

 

Extract from the Telegraph:-

Official figures show that only six per cent of the 60,000 children in care gain five or more A* to C GCSEs and more than a third are not entered for a single GCSE.

Conviction rates for young people in care are three times the rate for other juveniles. One in four girls leaving care is pregnant or already a mother. A recent case which caused outrage involved a 12-year-old living in a children's home in Blackburn who became pregnant while working as a prostitute.

Dismal outcomes are the norm despite the £2.5 billion a year spent looking after them. It costs £100,000 a year to keep a child in a children's home, more than four times the fees at top private schools such as Eton or Winchester.

Fostering can cost up to £30,000 a year, compared with the £7,500 a year that state boarding schools charge parents for accommodation, with the £5,000 cost of education covered by the local authorities.

The whole system of  Social Services,family courts,lawyers,"experts", special schools, fostering and adoption agencies depends on one thing alone....!Cash,lots of Cash !!

Read in the Evening Standard all about the Millionaire Baby Brokers

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050930/ ai_n15646428

 

http://www.h ardcashproductions.com/recent18.html

 

Social Services frequently claim children are "at risk" of "physical "or more often "emotional" harm from their parents,so is all this money spent putting children into care worthwhile?Here is just one example, which I MUST repeat again because it is so IMPORTANT !

 

JUST LOOK AT THE RISK A YOUNG GIRL RUNS WHEN TAKEN INTO "CARE" !

Sunday Mail August 27 2006 - Care home girl abused by 25 men in 2 years - A 14-year-old girl placed in a council children's home was prostituted to a group of depraved middle-aged men because staff were powerless to stop her going out. The horrific story of 'Becky' is highlighted in a BBC programme presented by Fiona Bruce this week which reveals how she was sexually abused by 25 men over two years - despite being known to social services and having been placed on the Child Protection Register. 

  Source: Daily Mail Published: 27th August 2006  

Social Services do NOT have the power they pretend to have over you and your children ! They rely almost entirely on threats and on BLUFF !! If they admit they have no power to stop a 12 year old in their care from working as a prostitute for 2 years,they certainly cannot stop children in care from phoning their parents, meeting them, or visiting them for a meal as long as they return to the fosterers or care home afterwards!

 

Research found that 42 per cent of young prostitutes had been in care at some point

Published: 14 December 2006 By the "INDEPENDENT"

The Government's own research highlights how the care system is not simply a negligent parent but at times probably more dangerous than the family from which some children have been taken. A study commissioned by the Home Office has looked at the link between hard drug use, sex work and various vulnerability factors. The results are astonishing, if not heartbreaking.

Less than 1 per cent of the child population is looked after by the state, but the research found that 42 per cent of young women prostitutes interviewed had been in care at some point in their lives. "This is an extraordinary figure, which demonstrates that looked after children are very vulnerable to involvement in drug use and sexual abuse through prostitution," the report concluded.

Gay foster parents abuse young boys,mother"s complaints ignored by social services!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml? xml=/news/2006/05/23/ngay23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/23/ixuknews .html

Surely all this shows where the real "risk" lies !!

News

 

Foster carer convicted of abuse and cruelty towards children in her care

writes Mithran Samuel

Former Gloucestershire foster carer Eunice Spry was convicted yesterday of multiple charges of abuse and cruelty towards children in her care, all of whom she was given parental responsibility for.

Spry, who was convicted at Bristol Crown Court, carried out the abuse over a 20-year period on three children, each of whom she either adopted or was given a residence order for. 

Council let known paedophile become foster parent

PATRICK BARNHAM AND RAYMOND HAINEY

A COUNCIL allowed a paedophile to become a foster parent, despite knowing he had been convicted of abusing a young girl, it was revealed yesterday.

William Alexander and his wife, Jessie, were approved as foster carers by Aberdeen City Council in 1993 - 14 years after he had been found guilty of lewd and libidinous behaviour and practices with a youngster.

His conviction - and the fact the local authority knew about it - emerged yesterday after he was convicted of abusing three young girls during the late 1990s. Children's campaigners last night raised questions about how Alexander was permitted to take on the role.

A jury of nine men and six women took just 40 minutes to find Alexander guilty of five counts of lewd and libidinous behaviour and practices at Aberdeen Sheriff Court. Sheriff Colin Harris deferred sentence until next month and Alexander, 57, from Bridge of Don, was released on bail.

Council officials last night defended the decision to allow Alexander to foster. A spokesman said: "Aberdeen City Council was aware of Mr Alexander's previous conviction, but did not consider that it posed a risk to the young person involved."

The spokesman said the couple's registration was suspended in May 2001 after a young person made an allegation of "inappropriate behaviour". They were formally de-registered six months later. He added: "We are aware of the circumstances surrounding the prosecution and conviction of Mr Alexander and have undertaken a complete review of the circumstances surrounding his approval as a foster carer, including reviewing the case files of all the children and young people placed in his care.

"Aberdeen City Council wishes to express its sincere regret at the nature of the offences and the distress this has caused the young women involved."

The trial heard that Alexander abused two 14-year-old girls and one seven-year-old girl between 1995 and 1997.

One of the teenagers was lying in her bed when Alexander entered her room and abused her. The court heard the girl was drunk at the time.

Duncan MacKenzie, prosecuting, told the jury: "She told you in graphic detail what was done to her in the bedroom by the accused and how she felt when that was happening.

"Drunk or not, she was fully aware of what was being done to her and by whom."

Alexander's previous conviction was at Stonehaven Sheriff Court in June 1979, when he was fined £80.

A spokesman for the charity Children 1st last night raised concerns about the council's handling of the case.

He said: "I cannot think of circumstances where it would be appropriate for someone convicted of sexual abuse against children to become a foster carer. You would not expect someone with a conviction of that nature to be approved as a foster carer."

The spokesman said the girls involved would need considerable assistance to help them come to terms with their ordeal. He added: "They will need a lot of support and care to get over this."

Outside court after the trial, Mrs Alexander bundled her husband into a waiting car with a leather jacket draped over his head.

About a dozen of the couple's neighbours lined up outside the court to hurl abuse at Alexander.

One of them, John MacDonald, said: "He got what he deserved at last.

"Those poor girls he molested are scarred for life."

• Social workers in Aberdeen were harshly criticised in the wake of their ineffective supervision of the paedophile Stephen Leisk, who murdered Scott Simpson, nine, in 1997.

A report into that case found that the senior social worker supervising Leisk let himself be conned by the sex offender.

The social worker came under fire over a series of fundamental failings in his supervision of Leisk in the weeks leading up to the boy's murder.

Foster father raped me! Wednesday 24th January 2007 Source: http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/

Yes,it's true that hundreds of parents physically abuse their children but it's also true that THOUSANDS of  foster parents, step parents ,adoptive parents ,and yes even social workers themselves working in children's homes do exactly the same!All deserve to be punished when detected, but in fact most of the cases CONTESTED by parents in the family courts concern either "emotional abuse" or worse still "risk of future harm" the  two latest "excuses" to take babies and young children from their parents and give them to complete strangers to meet adoption targets!As far as I know there is no recorded case where parents recovered their children in court against opposition from social services and subsequently abused or injured them.Surely this indicates that mothers who come weeping into the family courts begging for the return of their children should be given the benefit of any doubt?

EXTRACT FROM" NATIONAL STATISTICS"

Between 1994 to 2004 there were steady decreases in the proportions of children who were aged 5 to 14 who were adopted, and a significant increase in the proportion adopted who were aged 1 to 4. In 2004, 49 per cent of children adopted were in this age group compared with 26 per cent in 1994, while 13 per cent of adopted children in 2004 were aged 10 to 14 compared with 23 per cent ten years earlier.

THE GOLDEN RULES!!

Once again I will repeat the golden rules as they are so important ! Do please remember them all ! (By all means print this off and keep the copy near at hand if SS approach!Show these rules to your lawyer or social worker to show you KNOW your rights!)

REMEMBER THESE EVEN IF YOU FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE I HAVE ADVISED!   

1: Never contact social services for help or advice. Usually you should not report a partner who batters you or even a stranger who sexually assaults your young child, as if you do the SS will as often as not take your children into care (and later for adoption) to "protect them" from risk! If they have your children and you are fighting to get them back, NEVER NEVER tell social workers how you think you are going to defeat them, or what you are going to do next! Remember ,without mentioning it to "them", that even if your children are "in care" social workers do not have the legal power to stop your children going to a call box to phone you or even meeting you for a meal as long as they return "home" to the fosterers afterwards!

2:- Never believe a word they say and always insist they put their promises down in writing. Always be pleasant and polite to social workers, and remember that they may deliberately try to provoke you into shouting or violence that they will exaggerate in court leaving you with a criminal record and no children! When they shout at you forget your "pride" and look very hurt saying "why are you being like this to me?" or "I thought you were so nice until now, please don't bully me!" Be very respectful "tongue in cheek", but never follow their "helpful advice" especially if they say your only chance of getting your children back is to split from a partner or parent you love and respect! They will try and turn you against each other as the "divide and rule" principle makes sure you are confused and demoralised when you lose your case  and your children too! Quite often they arrange deliberately awkward contact times with your children. This can result first in the loss of your job and then as a consequence of that ,your accommodation also.Object loudly and forcefully in court to their plans and fight hard to keep your job and your house or flat. 

3:- NEVER, NEVER,NEVER sign any documents they present to you,even if they say "you have to!" Social Workers rely on BLUFF. In reality they have NO POWER and no right to threaten you or give you orders of any kind!Only a COURT via an order from a judge can give you orders,and you always have the opportunity to contest those orders in court either before or after they are given to you.No matter what threats,or promises they make ,you can be 100% sure that if you get intimidated into signing they will break their word and expect you to keep yours! So, DO NOT SIGN!! 

 4:-Never, never agree to let your children go into foster care (especially if they say it is temporary) Never "agree" the thresholds even if you are advised that this will ensure the return of your children,because if you do you will have admitted neglecting or abusing your child and the only question left will be to decide if you have really repented and are capable of "change"! Usually the answer is no !Sometimes your own lawyer may tell you to agree the thresholds and/or agree to an interim care order otherwise "you will never see your children again !"That is a wicked lie designed to save the lawyers work and to help you LOSE your children ! BEWARE ! 

5:-Never answer questions at case meetings , in court, or when you are being assessed by so called experts, (psychiatrists,therapists,psychologists,  counsellors, professionals, and the like) with more than 5 or 6 words (they write down anything unhelpful you may let slip). Try indeed to answer "yes" or "no" whenever possible . Never explain or elaborate as this only gives extra material to those who wish to discredit you.    

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 document from  the court such as a "recovery order" specifically allowing entry using reasonable force. Unless they have good reason to believe someone in the house is in danger of severe physical harm police also would have to have 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 as follows:

"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 persons who might obtain my medical details without my express authorisation".

8: Never write a letter to anyone connected to Social Services as you might include something that could damage your case in the family court.Only accept a solicitor if he/she promises to allow you a free hand to speak in court! You should be asked this simple question in the witness box "Have you anything you would like to say to the court?"Without this promise you may be "gagged" and you can lose your case without being allowed to say a word! 

And YES! They really,really do make up false evidence as "The Times" points out.............

 The Times October 19, 2006 - Blind justice without a name -Camilla Cavendish - If social workers really are manufacturing evidence in child abuse cases, their anonymity is assured Read article...

FREE LEGAL ADVICE: ian@monaco.mc 

TEL:-0033-626875684

IF you ring me from a fixed phone (not a mobile) and you give me the number I will ring you straight back at my expense ! If you have no phone at home any public phone box will do

This site is divided into sections each of which can be accessed by clicking on to the appropriate box at the very top of this page Each section can be read as a self contained unit,and for that reason statistics, actual cases and other information will sometimes be duplicated and repeated in more than one section. Now that you have read the "introduction" there are 7 more sections, each one carefully researched and verified, so if you read one section per day you will after only one week have absorbed far more knowledge than that possessed by the average family solicitor or just about any social worker!!   

If you want a quick snapshot of what I think and what I am trying to achieve go right now to the "REFORM" section by clicking on to that section in the box at the top of this page.

If  however you want a lot more detail with proof of the shocking behaviour of our family courts and social services backed up by official government statistics and other fully sourced figures read through the STATISTICS section!

If you are desperately trying either to stop your children being taken into foster care /adoption or to retrieve them and want advice as to what you can do , click on to the box above labelled "GET YOUR CHILDREN BACK" "Vital legal information "simply explained, that can win you your case is in this section.

If on the other hand you feel like being amused as well as thoroughly shocked by the absurd viewpoints and dictatorial attitudes of certain social workers and their managers ,then click on to the box at the top of this page labelled "CHILDSNATCHERS". 

Maybe you cannot believe or cannot understand how social workers whose vocation is to help people can act in this way ; then click on to the section "WHY DO THEY DO IT ?"

If you want typical situations, and truthful examples of the way social services actually behave and the tactics they use,then click on to the section "TYPICAL CASE SCENARIOS"

If you are prepared and willing to be thoroughly alarmed, shocked, and angry then read how these criminals take new born babies at birth from healthy mothers that have never harmed them ! Click on to the section ."NEWBORN BABIES TAKEN

 Contact me for free legal advice and practical help by e-mail ian@monaco.mc  or by phone 0033626875684. 

If you phone me from a fixed line (ie not a mobile if possible) I will ring you back at my own expense.