We must reform Family Courts and Family Law
JULY 6 2003
Secret courts that steal our children
|BY: Stuart Wavell
Kafkaesque children’s courts sitting in private are playing God with the families that come before them, writes Stuart Wavell.
They sound like a chilling legacy from the bad old days of the Soviet Union — secret courts that have taken thousands of children from their families and put them into foster homes or farmed them out for adoption.
There can be no appeal nor legal redress for most traumatised families. Lone judges, sitting without a jury, sever loved ones from each other on the word of omniscient medical “experts”. Any parent foolhardy enough to protest to the press risks dire penalties.
1:-The fact is that parents who have committed no crime are losing their children to forced adoption!
2:-Experts who depend on court appearances for a living, nearly always agree with the local authority.They make predictions that parents just might abuse their children (including newborn babies) in the future ,so these parents lose their children to permanent fostercare or adoption,not for something they have done but for something they might (or might not) do!
3:-Over 2000 UK children /month are taken into care ,Fosterers from private agencies are paid an average £400/week per child (birth mothers get around £20/week),and a foster agency founded by social workers getting around £1500/week per child was recently sold for £130million !A real money driven industry !!
4:-Parents whose children have been taken are gagged and threatened with prison if they protest publicly;At contact parents are gagged again and forbidden to get emotional,to speak any foreign language,or to discuss the case with their children otherwise contact will be stopped.
5:-More children are taken for emotional abuse than physical and sexual abuse added together.Despite "baby P" the number taken for physical abuse is steadily falling as a percentage of the total number of children taken.
6:-What are the solutions?
(a)Impose criminal rules of evidence in family courts so children cannot be taken unless parents are proved to have committed a crime affecting their children. Also parents would be free to obtain a second opinion from an expert of their own choosing,to call their own witnesses and to be declared innocent until proved guilty..
(b)Abolish all gagging of parents leaving them free to protest openly to the media if their children are taken, and also to say what they like to them at contact without censorship ! Two very simple changes, two very obvious solutions.,but will anyone impose them and derail the moneytrain? Don't hold your breath
And another way of putting it ........... What they should do (but won’t do !)
1:- Parents should be allowed to protest to the media if they feel their children have been unjustly taken into care.
2:-No children should be taken from parents unless those parents have committed a crime that could harm their children or any other children;ie non criminal parents.
3:- No judge should ever have the power to prevent non criminal parents from communicating with their children freely by email,telephone,the internet,or post;
4;-No child should be placed for adoption against the will of non criminal parents.
5:- No child in care should be isolated from family and friends byconfiscationof laptops and mobile phones, or have their conversation censored;
Stop tinkering and reform the system drastically as above !
This is to advertise the following
The free thinking voice Radio Show the earth needs rebels every Wednesday friday and sunday on criticalmassradio.co.uk in the uk.
MOBILE:- +353 0894256098
Hello Ian following your advice concerning the ss and their attempt to take our children from us because they say that our children were or had and were of risk of suffering emotional abuse we would like to let you know that we have indeed now fled from the uk and are now living in ROI.
It has taken some time for us to find a property to rent and to get the children into school.
The family is just starting to feel a little better and hopefully soon we can get over the huge trauma of what the ss has done to this family and most of all the emotional trauma that they have caused our children to experience and go through.
You are more than welcome to print this email on your website
We came into this country by boat and found the whole process extremely stress full from making the initial decision to leave after consulting you and watching the way the ss was deliberately contorting what was said to them by family and by my husband to comming into this country with little or no info on how to go about getting the help we needed.
We did contact some of the contacts you gave us to talk to and one or two were particularly help full to us with information that we needed to find a property.
If any one else is considering what we have had to do for the sack and safety of their children then please don`t hesitate to give them my email and mobile number as where we are living their are a few properties available to let and we could point some of them in the right direction for these properties.
What i would say is to make sure that you do have some Euros before entering this country and also make sure that they apply min 2 weeks before they go for an Ehic Card as this will help them if they have an medical emergency in this country.
They also need to make sure that they bring all Birth Certificates, Passports if they don`t have one for a child i strongly recommend that they obtain one before hand and they can do this by booking a same day passport application at a passport office it costs more but provided everything is correct they will have the passport the same day.
This is what we did little did we know at the time that it would be provident to do so as when you apply for the PPSN in this country you need to have two forms of id one being the birth certificate or marriage certificate the other being a passport of driving licence.
You need the PPSN numbers to get your child into school, to register at the health center ect even to open a bank account in this country and to work ect.
If they are on benefits they need to ring up in the uk and state that they are just seeking information that way they do not have to give their name or national ins number to the benefit office, hmrc office to find out if their benefits can be transported out to the ROI because some benefit can.
Any body needing help on this can contact us by mobile +353 0894256098 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
One of the first things they should also consider doing on arrival in this country if they have come with a car is to fuel it up and also to go into a local vodaphone shop, Meteor Shop, Tesco, Argos and purchase themselves a prepaid phone as uk mobile phones dont always work here and cost a fortune to use in the first place.
Best mobile to use is the Tesco Mobile cause they double it your top up so if you purchase 10 Euros they the give you an extra 20 Euro Call time credit which is mighty usefull.
Hope this helps.
Lynda and family
Thousand of parents, mostly mothers ,all over the UK ,have had their children brutally removed by social services and have been prevented from telling the public.Mothers whose babies have been removed at birth,have been gagged by threats of imprisonment if they dare to tell the world of their plight,and so have the newpapers ,the tv stations,and other media.Some of these parents may deserve to have their children removed ,but do even those parents deserve to be gagged so that their arguments cannot be made public?
This is not all however.When parents are finally allowed contact with their children “in care” they are gagged again ,and so are the children ! Parents are forbidden to say they miss their children and want them back,forbidden to discuss the court case,and if they are foreign visitors they are forbidden to talk with their children in their native language ! Any infringement of these draconian regulations means that contact is immediately stopped,sometimes for good !
The free speech we used to enjoy in the UK is thrown out of the window when it comes to protesting openly about the proceedings in the family courts or the gag on parents even when talking to their own children!
Orwell’s nightmares are being realised today in the United Kingdom,and only legislation by parliament can stop them !We should all hope for that…..
Forced adoption (especially if closed) is a crime against humanity outlawed in the rest of Europe (except maybe Croatia and Portugal) and those social workers and judges involved sould serve long prison sentences !
Gagging parents whose children have been taken and sending offenders who protest publicly to jail is an affront to democracy unique in the civilised world ;
Gagging parents a second time when they are allowed “contact “with their own children by stopping parents from mentioning the court case,speaking their own language if they are foreign, or saying they miss their children and want them back is an even worse breach of freedom of speech.
Keeping children from foreign countries here at vast public expense when all their parents want is for them to go home with their children to their own country and their own more humane social service systems is not only wicked it is idiotic !
Only wicked or deluded people adopt children whose parents are desperate to keep them and they deserve their come uppance when those children often dump them once they have tracked down their birth parents!
When the SS take children for future risk of emotional abuse authorised by compliant judges and give them for adoption by strangers they reveal themselves as “scum of the earth”
No child should be taken if no crime has been committed .Punishment without crime is an abomination ! Yes,"Punishment without crime" is an abomination tolerated in the UK more widely than in any other European country.Children should never be taken from sane parents who have been neither charged nor convicted of any crime against their children or any other children.
The sooner social workers in “child protection” are scrapped and children are protected by the police (as used to be the case when I was young!) the better it will be .
Family Court Judges who order forced adoptions are themselves criminals who should ALL GO TO PRISON for a very long time !!
Couple denied legal help while lawyers make £1m removing their children
Their English is poor, they are reduced to tears by their inability to understand what is going on in court, yet they are denied help in presenting their case.
Daily Telegraph 17 Sep 2011
Ever more disturbing becomes that particular case of children snatched from distraught parents that I have written about here more than any other. Dozens of times in the past 18 months this couple have been in court, trying to challenge the extraordinary allegations made against them by social workers. Yet, although their English is poor and they have regularly been reduced to tears by their inability to understand what is going on in court, they have again and again been denied help in presenting their case.
Last Christmas, I paid £2,000 to one law firm to represent them until legal aid was arranged. But the Legal Services Commission turned down their application and the lawyer walked off the case. Ian Josephs, a successful businessman who runs the Forced Adoption website, paid £3,500 to another solicitor, who also walked off the case having done nothing. In February, when the couple wished to be assisted by Paul Randall-Joliffe as a McKenzie friend, he was thrown out of the court after apparently asking too many provocative questions.
On July 21, Mr Josephs, who has a law degree and has aided many families in family courts as a McKenzie friend, flew over from France to assist the mother, but was brusquely evicted from the court by Mr Justice Mostyn without any of the explanation required under court guidelines. (Mr Josephs’ complaint about this is being considered by the Office of Judicial Complaints.) Sabine McNeill, an expert IT consultant who had applied to assist the father, was treated likewise.
Oddest of all, on September 8, when Maurice Kirk appeared in court to assist, in front of yet another judge new to the case, the solicitor for the children’s guardian alleged that Mr Kirk was secretly recording the proceedings and furthermore that he was not Mr Kirk but Mr Randall-Joliffe, who had already been excluded from the court when she was present. I am told that the judge therefore ordered Mr Kirk’s arrest and he was marched off to a police cell. Here he had no difficulty in proving to the bemused policemen both his true identity and that he had no recording equipment with him, and was released. But yet again this meant the hapless couple were allowed no one to help them in their battle to win back their children, one of whom they have not been allowed to see for over a year.
Meanwhile, at taxpayers’ expense, the bill for three teams of barristers and solicitors, representing the council, the guardian and the children, may well have run to over £1 million. Truly our family courts all too often stand all the fondly-imagined principles of British justice on their head.
I should explain the recent fall in adoptions and the increase in numbers of children taken into care in the UK (now over 100,000 !);Just follow the money !
When Tony Blair introduced £millions rewards to local authorities for reaching adoption targets adoption numbers rose.When the scandal of “adoptions for cash ” broke and rewards were scrapped adoption numbers gradually fell back again !
Care is now the money driven racket ! Fostering agencies make up to £20,000 per placement ,fostering families are offered around £400per week per child,(compared to around £20per week child allowance to natural parents),and only too often social workers get a substantial rake off from grateful foster agencies and families for recommending them !In the family courts we see a 5 solicitors and 5 barristers to represent the local authority,the guardian,the children,and each parent separately all 10 lawyers milking the system for all they are worth in case after case held in secret so the public cannot see the futility and expense involved. More often than not barristers and solicitors from both sides all get cosily together before the case to work out the best way of putting the kids in care without any arguments ! Just to make sure they call in assessors,psychiatrists,and psychologists,who are paid a fortune(up to £15000 for a report !) to rubbish the hapless parents knowing full well that if their reports were to be favourable to those parents they would probably not get asked to come to court again.Special schools (run privately) are also "coining it " as are many social workers earning generous commissions from them !
Money talks,especially to all those concerned with so called “child protection”, so expect fury and indignation to be expressed by the beneficiaries of the system against anyone bold enough to try and “rock the boat”. Each in their little corner making money out of the misery of deprived parents,why be surprised when each in turn rush to defend their “nice little earners”? No conspiracy is necessary
when they all benefit individually protected by court secrecy and additional injunctions,each protects his own patch and only public outrage can cure this cancer in our midst !
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:15 PM
Subject: ATTENTION OF TIM LOUGHTON ;IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FAMILY COURTS
Dear Tim Loughton,
I read your letter to the Daily Mail re articles by Christopher Booker criticising the family court system.
You seem confident that the cases he quotes are exceptional ,that most children are taken not snatched and only after careful consideration by the courts.You also claim that nobody benefits if a child is wrongly taken into care.Please see what a senior high court judge has to say.......
Family torn apart in 15-minute court case by Judge James Orrell ...
Lord Justice Thorpe said on Appeal "I am completely aghast at this case.There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing,because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.Once you have lost a child it is very difficult to get a child back."
This judge clearly means that most if not ALL parents are prejudiced in future court proceedings when their children have been "removed",and that once a child is removed it is very hard to get it back !It is not denied also that babies have often been taken from their mother's arms in hospital (snatched?) and older children woken up and taken late at night from their homes by social workers accompanied by several policemen ;(snatched?) Yes social workers do have to get ex parte emergency protection orders (usually with no parents present)followed by interim care orders that are seldom resisted at all by legal aid solicitors.Judicial statistics show that only one in 400 such orders are refused so parents have little chance of resisting.Judges side with social services out of caution ,but that only too often means that parents lose their children to fostering followed by adoption without being allowed to say a word.Why?Because legal aid solicitors and barristers advise them to "go along with social services" and everything will be alright....But it very seldom is !
The UK alone in Europe threatens parents with jail if they complain publicly when their children are removed.The right to protest openly if oppressed by the State is surely a basic right in any democracy but no Local Authority will discuss this basic right,or any other rights that Mr Booker writes about .Even you Mr Loughton have not pointed out a single innaccuracy in anything he has written but have just reproached him for having revealed the flaws you do not specifically deny exist.Even the right of parents to tell their children in care that they love them and want them home has been suppressed because parents wanting contact have to sign an agreement not to do this and not to speak in any foreign language even to foreign children who speak nothing else !Children are thus led to believe that their parents have agreed to social workers confiscating their mobile phones (convicts have more rights) ,and are happy they have left home and that they do not love or want them any more.
The UK alone in Europe (except maybe Portugal) is, as remarked by Baroness Hale LJ the only country to allow adoption against the will expressed in court of parents.Such parents have rarely been convicted of a crime but are punished by what amounts to a life sentence without even the possibility of a jury. Politicians such as yourself will never discuss this point either......
It is not correct to say noone benefits when a child is wrongly taken.The family allowance for a first child is around £20/week but foster families employed by private agencies get an average of £400/week per child,and the private fostering agencies get £27,000 for an adoption placement and around £1500/week for each child fostered.You can read on line how the National Fostering Agency founded by social workers a few years ago was recently sold to Graphite for £130million !Barnardos publish their annual revenue at over £175million/year.Privately owned "special schools" receive around £8000/week (at least 3 times the fees at Eton) .Lawyers make countless court appearances including well paid "adjournments"Other "hangers on" manage to make a good living to say the least and it is not unknown for some to receive commissions from schools and agencies for referrals.No conspiracy necessary ,everyone concerned is on "a nice little earner" so mistakes are covered up as nobody wants anyone to rock the boat.
Incredibly MPs and local authorities claim they cannot discuss individual cases,(which makes one wonder who they do represent if not individuals) but even if this were to be true there is nothing to stop you Mr Loughton and other politicians discussing openly the issues I have raised here since I have invited answers to general questions none of which involve any family by name.The baby p factor is a myth by the way since after that horrific episode the number of children taken for physical abuse has fallen as a percentage of the 1000 children/month taken from parents in the UK (poor adoption material?) as opposed to the increase(70%) in children taken for emotional abuse or worse still "risk" of emotional abuse at the behest of well paid court experts making predictions!(On that basis why not arrest windowshoppers in case they might go inside and steal something!).
If you seriously look for improvements in the family court system please allow serious critics of the system (Camilla Cavendish ,Christopher Booker,Sue Reid or even myself?),to take part in the various "consultations;My own suggestion would be simple but effective.....
Ensure by legislation that Family Courts work under the same rules of procedure as our Criminal Courts.(Innocent until proved guilty etc), and no gagging of parents (who should be treated like rape victims ;free to tell their stories in public if they choose).Punishing parents who have not been proved guilty of any offence by confiscating their children is wrong,so please help to stop "PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME!
Unless courts drop the concept of ‘emotional abuse’ more mothers will be tempted to flee with their children
With the Government letting thugs out of prison because it can’t afford to keep them there, it was surprising to see a woman jailed for nine months last week for taking her seven-year-old son to Canada. “Abduction” conjures up an image of kidnap, not protection.
This woman feared that her son would be taken into care and then placed with his father who, he claimed, had hurt him. She told me last week that she had fled because she believed that her son was “in imminent danger. I was in despair. I didn’t know how to protect him.”
The woman had approached social services when the boy made allegations of a vaguely sexual nature about his dad, and said that he no longer wanted overnight contact visits with him. A psychologist decided that she had coached her son to lie, and was therefore causing him emotional harm, and that the boy should go into care. He has now been in care for 15 months. His mother is in prison. Even if the father is innocent, the “interests of the child”, that ubiquitous pretext, have been ill-served.
This case is part of a pattern. When Angela Wileman asked Devon County Council to help her alcoholic husband, social workers accused her of emotionally harming her son by letting him witness her husband’s violence. The boy was placed with foster parents, to be adopted. Ms Wileman fled with him to Spain, Sweden and then the Republic of Ireland, pursued at each stage by the Abduction Child and Contact Unit. In each country the authorities found her to be a good mother.
Devon has now withdrawn its case, which means she is free to speak out. Most are silenced. I am still not allowed to name a man who helped his wife and stepson to flee abroad three years ago. The boy packed his bag and, of his own accord, climbed out of a window at the foster home that he had repeatedly run away from. He was in care because of a catalogue of errors — which I cannot legally describe in any detail — after the mother had extricated herself from a violent marriage. The stepfather was jailed for 16 months for what many in his village saw as heroism, not abduction.
One campaigning MP knows of at least 15 other families on the run. One couple left the country soon after I watched an expert witness change her mind in court about a personality disorder that was said to afflict the mother. The expert changed her diagnosis to a different disorder which might, she thought, lead the mother to harm her child emotionally in the future. It was a staggering moment for me. But the court did not blink. The child remained in care.
You can believe, in each case, that the parents are evil or deeply flawed. The lack of information to which we are legally entitled means that this may be true. Or you can wonder whether the serious charge of abduction is being stretched awfully thin by a system that seeks to punish the victims of its own failures.
Common to all these cases is the belief that the children are at risk of “emotional harm”. Last year more children were placed on the at-risk register for emotional harm than for sexual abuse or physical abuse. Yet the term is nebulous. Spain does not recognise it at all. Ireland does, but only in extreme cases. Unlike the British authorities, those countries do not think that having had the misfortune to live with an alcoholic made Ms Wileman an unfit mother. The mother jailed last week told me how terrible it was that she could neither prove nor disprove the allegation that she had coached her son to lie.
Emotional abuse is not clear cut. There are no bruises, scars or cigarette burns. There does not even have to be evidence of neglect, such as lack of hygiene, nutrition or schooling. So cases hinge heavily on expert witness evidence about the mental state of the carers. Courts ask psychologists and psychiatrists to make fine judgments about relationships. Some simply do not spend enough time with the parties to justify the courts treating their subjective opinions as hard evidence. While many judges are assiduous readers of reports, the bald fact is that courts rarely refuse applications for care orders: only 20 were refused in 2008, out of more than 7,000.
There is concern within the profession. In a recent article for Family Law Week, a clinical psychologist at the Maudsley Hospital, London, wrote that he and his colleagues “frequently see cases in which there have already been conducted expert reports of extremely variable quality”. He suggested that “the mismatch in expectations between solicitors and clinicians” makes clinicians “feel under pressure to go beyond their usual service”. A senior psychiatrist expert witness recently told me that good judgments can be made only by examining patterns of behaviour over a long period, not by a one-time snapshot of a family. Yet the latter is what happens.
The conflicts are legion. The expert is supposed to be jointly appointed by all parties. But many get repeat business from local authorities, which themselves have to straddle awkwardly their duty to support families and their role as prosecutor. Expert reports are not peer reviewed, they are kept from the media and sometimes from parents. And parents cannot call their own expert in their defence. This is supposed to be a safeguard, in that the child’s voice is represented separately by a guardian. But there is now such a shortage of guardians that they may not get a grip until the case is nearing resolution, at which point the momentum is unstoppable.
The chaos in the family justice system can only further diminish common sense. We might reverse the trend if judges put on their hats and coats and went to visit some of these families, instead of ploughing through jargon; and if the MPs who passed the 1989 Children Act were to abolish the term “emotional abuse”, which has no legal definition, in favour of “neglect”. If we can’t have clarity in law, we won’t have justice. Things are desperate when ordinary people choose to leave everything familiar behind, and risk jail, rather than trust the State.
Camilla Cavendish won Campaigning Journalist of the Year at the 2009 British Press Awards for her work on family courts
Social Workers and others from the family and adoption authorities etc rarely debate the merits or otherwise of the family courts,the social services and adoptions without parental consent . When on those rare occasions they do comment, they always decry their critics as irresponsible,dangerous,and guilty of slandering devoted public servants.They NEVER answer the points made in the argument! I therefore invite someone from social services,the courts,or from government, to comment on the following:-
1:- Parents whose children have been taken are "gagged" from protesting publicly and cannot reveal any details of what they might regard as unfair treatment in the family court.The fundamental right to protest against a perceived injustice is thus completely undermined
2:-Children are often removed because some "professional" decides that they are "at risk".Parents therefore lose their children not for anything they have done but for something someone else thinks they might do at some time in the future! !Who can defend themselves against a mere prophecy that labels them guilty until proved innocent?
3:-Adoption targets do exist and several are published by local authorities on the internet showing the financial rewards for achieving them.(often millions of pounds).Fosterers are often paid £400/£500 p)er week per child,and "special schools charge as much as £6000 per week per child (10 times the fees for Princes William and Harry at Eton!).Adoption agencies (often owned by social workers or ex workers) charge around £18,000 per placement,Experts charge £3000/£4000 for a report on a parent,and lawyers fees + court charges can range from £30,000 to as much as £500,000 depending on the length of the case ! Every body "cashes in " except for the parents and their children !
4:-Family Court judges nearly always "play it safe" and "go along with social services" treating them like police in the sense that when a parent's evidence conflicts with that of a social worker the latter is nearly always believed.A jury would never take a child for adoption for "risk of emotional abuse" ,"failing to appreciate a child's emotional needs,"or "unable to protect a child from witnessing domestic (often only verbal) violence";Even more certainly a jury would never take a newborn baby for adoption merely because there were unproved suspicions of violence in the father's past,or because another child or newborn baby had previously been taken in completely different circumstances and maybe with a different partner/father.If a burglar facing a possible 6 months jail sentence has the legal right to demand a jury so should parents facing a "life sentence" when they lose their children to adoption by anonymous strangers!
5:-At "contact sessions" parents are in most cases forbidden to mention court proceedings or even that they long for their children's return.Telephone conversations are usually similarly restricted and even forbidden altogether leaving vulnerable children to wonder why their parents do not want them back.The cancelling or reducing of contact sessions is often used as a "weapon" to threaten parents who do not cooperate or who too actively oppose the care plans of the local authority.All this smacks of George Orwell's worst nightmares!
6:- Too often innocent parents who do not confess their supposed errors and repent are labelled non cooperative and "in denial".If mothers are upset when their babies are "confiscated they are "over emotional";If parents are hostile to social workers who take their children they need "anger management courses "and must suffer from" personality disorders" ,and if they dare to criticise the powerful forces leagued against them they are labelled "paranoiac"!
Maybe some "establishment figure" could comment on these points instead of just deploring critics and calling them ill informed and dangerous !
BEWARE !! Care applications by social services in the year 2010/2011 have increased by more than 40% since the year 2008/2009 !!
Want to track down your adopted child or missing parent?
If you go to the main library in London or ,Manchester .Look in the files of birth ,deaths ,marriages ,and there are also adoption records ,which only tell you the person's adopted name, date of birth, and date of adoption on the record .So you copy all the records then you work through them and eliminate say your child was a boy ,you eliminate all girls,all twins,and so on ,then when you have got it down to just a few you can send off for a copy of adoption certs which give you all the details .People think they can't trace their adopted children . This would shock the social services if they knew how easy it was to trace adopted kids ..
If your children have already been adopted do not despair ! Wait until at least one is a teenager then track them down via the public library as advised above and also by plastering the internet with requests for them to contact you.See below two successful reunions !
21 Aug 2010 – Winona Varney was reunited with her mother through Facebook, writes Christopher Booker. Christopher Booker. By Christopher Booker ...
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
8 Nov 2006 – Von and Tammy. 'I've gone ... Tammy is now campaigning for changes to save other children from the sort of injustice she suffered. Above all ...
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The Times - March 29, 2007 - by Camilla Cavendish -The forces of secrecy are prevailing - Last week a High Court judge denounced the “nightmare” suffered by a couple who were wrongly accused of harming their baby son. Read Article...
Time and again we hear about the merits of either admitting or excluding the media from proceedings in the family courts.This is in practical terms irrelevant as journaists would seldom bother to sit through days of tedious hearings even if they could!The important reform needed is to end the gagging of parents and other parties to the case and to allow them the very fundamental right to protest against injustices.
In 2006 statistics from the newly formed "department for children,schools, and families show that 4160 children "under 5 " were taken into care and 2490 of these were rushed into adoption! The financial rewards given by central government to local authorities under public service agreements for those who meet or exceed their "adoption targets" has caused an unprecedented stampede to adoption.It has also caused misery to thousands of loving parents who will never see their children again and who face jail if they reveal details of their ordeal to the public !
There has been no case on record of a parent succeeding in court in retrieving children against opposition from social services and subsequently killing or severely harming them. If any such case had existed it would have been in the criminal court,well publicised in the press,and widely quoted as a warning by social services. The only case frequently quoted by social workers to justify removing children they consider "at risk" is that of Victoria Climbé who was in fact in care and killed by her "carers" not her parents!There have however been literally thousands of cases of children put into care despite opposition from parents who have subsequently been sexually abused, physically damaged,or even killed when in "care"
South Wales EchoScandal of children's homes abuse payouts - More than 160 adults who claim they were abused in a sex scandal that rocked children's homes in South Wales have been paid a total of £3m in compensation. Read article...
The University of Melbourne has issued an apology to the Forgotten Australians over medical experiments performed on children in state care.
In an email to staff and students, the university's vice-chancellor expressed particular regret for the part played by researchers linked to the institution.
Following the revelations in the Nuremberg trials of the extent to which Nazi doctors had experimented on children, a code of conduct was developed for obtaining consent in medical research.
In the following decades that code was refined and nowadays many countries, including Australia, have their own strict guidelines for the use of children in medical experiments.
But before that it was fairly common practice for children in care in particular to be used in experiments, usually without consent.
In 2004, Queensland Labor Senator Jan McLucas chaired a Senate inquiry into the experiences of the Forgotten Australians.
"I think it was quite surprising to all of the committee members the extent of use of children for a range of trials, of vaccines, of other medical procedures, including horrifically enforced gynaecological examinations of young girls as almost routine," she said.
"It happened in a lot of places in Australia; drugs were provided to children under approved trials, events that would never happen nowadays of course, but it was rather extensive and fairly shocking."
In some of the material sourced by the inquiry, a researcher from the University of Melbourne is named as being involved in experiments using children in care.
In an email sent to staff and students, the university's vice-chancellor, Glyn Davis, said it was appropriate that the university took the occasion "to express its deep regret for the part played by researchers linked to its community in vaccination research trials conducted after World War II using children in orphanages as subjects".
The email says the counselling services of the university are available to Forgotten Australians who are part of its community
Many of these children were sent from the UK to Australia often without parental consent via Dr Barnardo's homes and other agencies to "lead a better life !"
Surely this shows where the real "risk" lies ?!
Daily Mail September 18 2006 - 60,000 children in care 'betrayed' as three out of four fail at school - The shameful betrayal of more than 60,000 children caught in the state care system is exposed today in a damning new report. Read article...
BBC News August 23 2006 - System 'failing children in care' - Children in care are written off by the education system, with nearly eight out of 10 gaining no examination qualifications whatever, children's charity Barnardo's says. Read article...
More than 75% of care leavers have
no academic qualifications of any kind
More than 50% of young people leaving
care after 16 years are unemployed
17% of young women leaving care
are pregnant or already mothers
10% of 16-17 year old claimants of DSS
severe hardship payments have been
23% of adult prisoners and 38% of young
prisoners have been in care
30% of young single homeless people
have been in care
Above source: The Children Leaving Care Bill [HL] Bill 134 1999-2000 PDF Document
One third of the prison population were brought up "in care ". Worse still children forcibly removed from their mothers and brought up in care often fall pregnant at a very early age. When this happens they run a very real risk of having not just the first baby but every new baby removed at birth for adoption each time they too in their turn become mothers.
All the above surely makes a case for at least a presumption that any parent willing to spend day after day in various intimidating courts, begging for the return of their children should be granted their wish unless overwhelming evidence is produced to show why this should not be so.
Parents or carers who brutally mistreat children do not go to court to fight for their return ,so those who do go should if possible be given the benefit of any doubt rather than the contrary as now is the case.
A malevolent judge threatened to send a mother and father TO PRISON if they went to the press or did anything that could betray the identity of their baby stolen at birth by social workers because they did not like her father!
HYPOCRITICAL SOCIAL WORKERS THEN ADVERTISED in the Daily Mirror to millions of readers offering no less than 10 unfortunate little victims FOR ADOPTION BY STRANGERS rather like pedigree dogs !!
Note the "whites only" racial discrimination of thse hypocrites !!
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.
Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed.......;
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain to the media when their babies abd young children are taken from them.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into permanent or longterm "care".(let juries decide)
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children from parents who have NOT commited or been charged with any crime. In cases of non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings children should not be removed unless a written warning has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
9:-Foreign visitors to the UK who have not caused significant physical harm to their children (broken bones etc) but who have "offended"UK social services should always be allowed the option of returning to their country of origin with their children.
10:-Litigants in person in the family courts opposing applications for interim care orders should as of right be allowed to see the reports of social workers and "experts" that are at present used against them ,but shown only to the judge
Children should only be taken if a parent has been charged with a crime against a child or has committed one . The process of dealing with such cases in a criminal court rather than a civil one would also DETERMINE THAT FAULTS BY A PARENT WOULD BE JUDGED NOT ON PROBABILITIES BUT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT . Parents would then automatically have the right to ask for a hearing in front of a jury if they risked losing their children long term or permanently.
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.
EXAMPLES OF HOW RULES OF EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN DISCARDED IN THE FAMILY COURTs WHEN GRANTING INTERIM CARE ORDERS.
1:- Statements from the local authority are shown to the judge but rarely to parents.
2:- Parents representing themselves are denied the opportunity to cross examine witnesses appearing against them.
3:- Parents are routinely refused permission to call for a second opinion when "experts" and Doctors have testified against them.
4:-Parents whose children have been taken are wrongly told that they may not talk to ANYONE about their case.
5:-Parents are jailed if they protest publlcly when their children are taken.They are also jailed for "breach of the peace" if they dare to trace and then contact their own children after adoption.
6:-Local authority barristers in court often read out statements from absent persons as though they are witnesses but they cannot be questioned.
7:- Most solicitors refuse to let their clients speak and then agree to all care orders demanded by social services.
8:-Judges routinely castigate parents who wish to speak or who represent themselves even though they have the right to do so;Their evidence and their arguments are usually ignored in the judgements.
9;-Parents representing themselves are often given an hour or two's notice to appear in court but solicitors are given weeks !
10:-Parents are punished for "risk" ie not what they have done but for what they might do in the future!
11:-Parents are said to inflict emotional harm on their children when this term is subjective and without definition.Judges give social workers the power to withold parent's contact with their children as a punishment for saying they love them and miss them or that they are fighting to get them back .
12:-Parents are in effect condemned for offences against their children on "probabilities" 51% instead of beyond reasonable doubt.
13:-Parents who were themselves in care or who were abused in childhood are often judged unfit to be parents as a result.
14:-Parents often forfeit their children for "failing to engage with professionals"
15:-Parents faced with forced adoption lose their children for life, without being allowed a hearing by jury.
16:-Under the UN Convention on children's rights children have a RIGHT to be heard in court but are usually denied that right.
17:-Solicitors routinely tell client parents to agree to interim care orders or they will never see their children again.A lie !
18:-Social workers are legally obliged to place children with relatives if possible but either ignore this or find pretexts to fail them on assessments
19:-Human rights to free speech and freedom of movement are breached by gagging orders and confiscating passports.
20:-Parents are routinely forbidden to call witnesses on their behalf contrary to human rights.
During National Adoption Week some children needing adoption were featured on This Morning (ITV) as well as in The Sun. Those children are also featured here with their profiles.
If you would like to enquire about any child profiled during National Adoption Week in The Sun or on This Morning, please complete the online enquiry form
Profiled on This Morning
Profiled on This Morning
Aged 5, 4 and 3 respectively
Profiled on This Morning
Yes parents are gagged,children are gagged, but the "SS" can advertise kids like stray cats or dogs "wanting a kind home !"
Read more detailed reforms below together with the reasons for them and the proofs that they are necessary.
More than 200 MPs have called for the abolition of all secrecy in family courts.Despite the theoretical opening up of the family courts to the press judges still turn away reporters from any cases that seem to be controversial.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29194&SESSION=875 . There should be no gagging orders on parents who should be free like rape victims to waive anonymity and go to the press with their history, their identities, and their complaints (including details of the court proceedings, the witnesses who testified, and the judgement) if they believe their children have been unjustly taken. These children are routinely advertised for adoption like pedigree dogs by social services in magazines "Adoption UK" etc., on the internet www.ukkids.info etc,and even in the Daily Mirror! All with full colour photos, first names and birth dates, allowing easy identification by the neighbours! The secrecy exists to gag protesting parents not to protect the identity of the children and should be scrapped! Also abolition of "jail with no public hearing" (a parliamentary question revealed that more than 200 persons were sent to prison in secret last year by family courts!).
2. HARM & RISK
The notion of "emotional harm" is a vague concept impossible to either prove or disprove and should be scrapped. Most important of all however is "RISK". Parents and children are split up, and in effect punished not because of anything they have done but only for what the “professionals” think someone might do! Perfectly happy and healthy children are declared to be at risk of harm at some time in the future by social workers and hired "experts" (psychologists, therapists, psychiatrists and the like!) who base their opinions very largely on the reports from social workers which are always so thoughtfully provided for them!Any experts that are consulted should start "with a clean sheet" unbiased by reports favourable or otherwise from social workers, expert "colleagues",or other outside sources. Parents are asked how they can possibly know better than these highly qualified (and very highly paid!) professionals! In fact the answer is both simple and financial. In the Louise Woodward case for example, top experts disagreed about a possibly shaken baby but each expert gave evidence for the side that paid them!! Some supposedly “top experts” like Professor Meadows, Professor Southall and Dr Marietta Higgs, caused literally hundreds of children to be legally kidnapped on evidence based on their crackpot theories that have now been thoroughly discredited! In any case, the experts hired by social services always tend to take the side of their social service or family court paymasters so children and worse still, newborn babies, are then sent for adoption. This is said to avoid any more risk from parents who are naturally angry and upset that their children have been removed and who can then be declared to be emotionally unstable. A result as unjust as it is absurd! Would any genuinely loving mother be able to remain calm and cooperative with those who had taken her children or worse still, her newborn baby? On the continent in France, Spain, Italy etc. children are only taken from parents if they have suffered severe physical harm. The concepts of "emotional harm" and "future risk" quite rightly do not exist there! Children from these countries are only taken if a parent has committed or at least been charged with a CRIME against their child. "NO CRIME NO CARE ORDER" should be the rule also in the UK. The simple fact that "other children from the same mother have previously been taken into care" should no longer be considered an adequate reason for removing children, and ESPECIALLY NEW BORN BABIES from parents. Circumstances can and often do change, and it is wicked to ignore such changes. To take a baby from a mother of sound mind who has never in any way caused it harm must be a CRIME (as an article in The Times clearly states). Every completely blameless mother in the UK is now at risk of having her baby taken at birth because the father has merely been "suspected" (not charged or convicted) of some violent incident in his distant past. "
Decisions in contested cases in family courts THAT INVOLVE LONG-TERM FOSTER CARE (or forced adoption if that has not been abolished) must be decided by jury. Any burglar or other criminal facing a possible 6 months or more in prison has the right to demand a jury so why not a parent facing the loss of a child to adoption? In effect a life sentence! A jury would be less likely to "rubberstamp" demands of social services than "establishment judges", who inevitably take what they often describe as "the safe option" and agree with highly-paid experts who foretell that children are at risk of emotional harm! It is very rare that any judge will restore children or babies to parents against opposition in court from social services. THESE JUDGES ARE THE REAL VILLAINS AS THEIR JUSTICE SHOULD PROTECT THE WEAK NOT OPPRESS THEM. I believe (like The Times article) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article759348.ece that these establishment judges commit a wicked crime every time they condone the taking of newborn babies from sane mothers that have never caused their babies harm. At Nuremburg after World War II the Nazi judges were condemned to prison as criminals and many of our family court judges deserve the same fate. Most of the decisions that now divide children from loving parents would be decided quite differently by a jury! This would soon reduce the number of cases brought by social services before the courts!
Children should only be taken if a parent has been charged with a crime against a child or has committed one . The process of dealing with such cases in a criminal court rather than a civil one would ensure that faults by parents would no longer be judge by probabilities but beyond reasonable doubt. This would also automatically give the right to parents to ask for a hearing in front of a jury if they risked losing their children long term or permanently.
Telephone contact must never be forbidden between parents and children. Letters and conversation between parents and children must NEVER be censored or restricted by the social service "thought police". Frequency of contact visits between parents and children in care should be decided specifically by a court and NOT left to the discretion of social services who sometimes use their discretion as a weapon to subdue "difficult" parents.
Parents accused of neglect that has not endangered the life of the child (absences from school, dirty or cluttered house etc.) should be given a written warning to put matters right, and a chance to do so before children can be taken. Foreign visitors to the UK whose children have been taken by social services for emotional abuse or trivial injuries that would probably have been overlooked in their own countries, should be offered the option of returning to those home countries with their children.
The Government’s own research in 2001 already showed “concern that the needs of the children were being overlooked because of the struggle to meet adoption targets” http://www.local.dtlr.gov.uk/research/beacyr3/adoption/07.htm . Our top priority should be the abolition of forced adoption, i.e. when a parent who has not been convicted of any crime that might affect the child opposes adoption in the family court. Also, all adopted children should retain their original birth certificate so they know who their birth parents are ! It is a wicked deed when the State conspires to conceal from adopted children the identity of their own parents by faking a new but false certificate of birth!
Adoption targets and large government rewards for achieving those targets (under public service agreements) should be scrapped. Kent got £21million(!), fosterers get as much as £400 per child per week, Special Schools up to £7000/week per child, adoption agencies around £18000/placement, lawyers as much as £50,000 per case, "experts” up to £4000 for a 3-hour interview with a parent. Without these rewards, social workers and others might be more motivated to keeping families together instead of splitting them up! Over 60,000 children are in care and more than 3000/year are adopted, of which over 700/year are taken after hearings contested by distraught parents who nearly always lose! These figures are extremely disturbing. 20 MPs from all parties have signed early day motion 626 deploring the way social workers take babies and young children into care NOT for the benefit of the child but to meet the adoption targets set by the Government.
So-called "experts" and "professionals" should no longer be allowed to make "prophecies" and "risk assessments" in court ,or "play detective "guessing who was responsible for injuries, but should confine themselves to the facts and to the present. It is incredible that in the UK families are ruthlessly split up NOT for events that have happened but for events that so called "experts" think one day might happen! As already stated the Louise Woodward case demonstrated the fallibility of "professionals" when the most distinguished experts in the country disagreed about a "shaken baby" case. "Experts” that are selected by social services or by "the court" unsurprisingly almost always end up by deciding that the hapless parents are "in denial" suffer from "paranoia" or have a "personality disorder" simply because like many journalists, from The Times, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail, broadcasters of programmes like “The Real Story” and thousands of other people, they see social workers as "childsnatchers" rather than kindly helpers devoted to the public good! Parents are rarely allowed by their lawyers to call their own "experts" and if they represent themselves they cannot afford to.Parents who risk losing their children to adoption on the word of a medical expert should ALWAYS have the right to a second opinion by an expert of their own choice Most legal aid lawyers are widely known as "professional losers" because they collect large fees for simply advising parents to give up the fight. They almost never win cases in the civil family courts as they rarely call all the witnesses and often forbid parents to say anything in court at all!! Parents should be able to testify and to call their children, their family doctor, and other family members as witnesses. According to the UN convention on children's rights, to which the UK subscribes, children capable of understanding the nature of a court have the right to testify in proceedings that involve them, and the right to an undisturbed family life including contact with their siblings .These rights are normally completely disregarded by the secret UK family courts. Both parent's human rights and their children's rights should be respected at all times. Hearsay and recorded or video material should no longer be allowed as evidence in family courts.
8. EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDERS
These must be abolished as parents have no opportunity to oppose them or defend themselves. The police have authority (police protection) to remove children they believe to be in danger and they alone should decide if any immediate danger really exists.
A McKenzie friend (parent's lay advisor) should be allowed to present the parent's case and cross-examine witnesses. This clause is doubly important when parents have been refused or are not eligible for legal aid. Such a person would usually stand a better chance of winning a case for parents than most of “the legal aid lawyers” (PROFESSIONAL LOSERS) who collect huge fees for advising hapless parents not to fight social services but to go along with everything they say. Parents have no need for lawyers to do that, but how those legal sharks must laugh as they cash in! Parents who represent themselves and who wish to appeal should be supplied by the court with a copy of the judgement within 7 days so that they can put the appeal into court before expiration of the time limit.
A parent who loses custody of children to an ex-wife, ex-husband, or ex-partner should have an enforceable right to such contact as the court awards. If such contact is denied or persistently prevented by one parent the court should warn the offending parent that if there is any more refusal to obey a court order for contact then the court will transfer custody to the parent that has been deprived.
FREE LEGAL ADVICE: email@example.com TEL: 0033626875684.
If you ring me, IAN JOSEPHS, from a fixed phone (not a mobile) and you give me the number I will ring you straight back at my own expense! If you have no phone at home any public phone box will do.
Here are the 10 refoms advocated by Camilla Cavendish in the Times:-
I believe that wholesale reforms are needed, which can be summed up in ten points:
1. Open family courts to the press in all but exceptional circumstances (as recommended by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee).
2.Let any parent or carer accused of abuse call any witnesses they need in their defence. At the moment, they are routinely refused permission to do so.
3.Give automatic permission for parents who are refused legal aid to get a lay adviser to help them present their case. This is routinely refused.
4.Remove the restrictions that prevent families from talking about their case (as recommended by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee).
5.Review the definition of “emotional abuse” across local authorities, to make sure that it cannot become a catch-all for overzealous officials.
6.Provide an automatic right for parents to receive copies of case conference notes and all evidence used against them in court, just as they would in a criminal trial.
7.Create an independent body to oversee the actions of social services, with proper sanctions. If that body is to be the General Social Care Council, make it easier for parents to go directly to that body rather than having to face delays from the local authority.
8.Let children in care waive their right to privacy if they wish to speak out. For gagging children is surely not consistent with promoting their welfare.
9.Restructure CAFCASS, the Family Court Advisory Service, from being an organisation that reports on the parents to the courts to one that actively promotes the parenting needs of children. The primary focus should cease to be assisting the court process. It should be diverting parents away from contested hearings into the making of parenting plans.
10.Review the recent legal aid cut-backs that are deterring lawyers from taking on these complex family cases.
Lord Denning was one of the greatest British judges in living memory.He condemned the secrecy of children's courts in the following words:-
Every court should be open to every subject of the queen.
I think it is one of the essentials of justice being done in the community. Every judge, in a sense, is on trial to see that he does his job properly. Reporters are there, representing the public, to see that magistrates and judges behave themselves. Children's courts should also be open. Names should be kept out but the public should know what happens to the child and proceedings should never be conducted behind closed doors
Somehow I believe, in the words of Jeremy Bentham, that in the darkness of secrecy all sorts of things can go wrong.
And if things are really done in public you can see that the judge does behave himself, the newspapers can comment on it if he misbehaves- it keeps everyone in order".
There is one special reason why reform progress is slow !!
March 7 2006
Following the epidemic of false allegations made against innocent and vulnerable parents and their children, one puzzle has continued to dominate;
Why when in many cases there is documentary evidence that social workers and others have presented perjured evidence to the Family Courts has no prosecution followed?
Why have the police not proceeded with the charges they have informed parents they were going to bring? This includes the CID.
Why when there has been documented evidence recorded by the social workers themselves, identifying social workers as being engaged in child abuse, has no prosecution followed ?
This has been going on for a number of years and recently it has been getting more blatant.
There has to be a reason for this! And although one might not discover the complete reason for such activity, one might be expected to discover some significant component driving the epidemic of false allegations.
We know that social workers have established defacto immunity for themselves, in the Family Courts. But why and how?
Could this be a contributory reason for the failure of the police to prosecute those engaged in perjury and other offences in the Family Court?
Could this be the reason in the huge explosion of children taken into Care and then adopted?
Consider the following:
This is the current list of MPs and MSPs (Scottish) who were previously social workers or worked for Social Services. (This list is not complete)
1.....Tessa Jowell MP. Minister. Lab
2......Beverly Hughes MP......Lab
3.......Margaret Hodge MP.....Lab
4.... Rachael Squire MP ( Deceased ) .....Lab
5........Jane Kennedy MP........Lab
6.... John Austin MP.........Lab
7......Paul Goggins MP....Home Office Minister.
8.......Hilton Dawson MP ( Left Parliament ) ....Lab
9........Meg Munn MP........Lab
10.......Hilary Armstrong MP......Lab
11.......Hewell Williams MP......Lab
12.......Julie Morgan MP.....Lab
13......Dan Norris MP....Lab
14......Jenny Willot MP....Lib Dem
15.......Anthony Steen MP Conservative.
16.......Madeline Moon MP....Lab
17......Sian James MP....Lab
18....Cathie Jamieson MSP
19....Shiona Baird MSP
20.....Scott Barrie MSP
21….. Margaret Curran, MSP. Glasgow, Labour, former social worker
22…..Trish Godman, MSP. West Renfrewshire, Labour, former social worker
23.....Jonathan Shaw MP who assists Ruth Kelly as her PPS -he was a social worker for Kent CC
24......Ann Coffey MP who was a social worker in fostering and
25......Mike Wood MP was not only a social worker but chair of Kirklees Social Services Committee before being an MP
26.......Sylvia Heal MP was a social worker
27…….Baroness pitkeathley, Lab House of Lords.
There are others. Who are they ?
There are further ex social workers in the House of Lords.
It has been noticeable that social workers who have been identified being involved in/the perpetrators of perjured evidence in Family Court proceedings or involved in physical abuse against children are seldom prosecuted by the police, despite there being plenty of supporting evidence and documentation
So we ask ourselves; Who is in charge of the Police Force that is so reluctant to investigate these Family Court cases?
ANSWER: The Home Office
And who is the Minister at the Home Office responsible
for offences against children?
ANSWER...... Paul Goggins (No. 7)
So what’s this chap's previous employment
ANSWER Social worker for 15 years
And where specifically was Paul Goggins employed ?
ANSWER: National Childrens Homes( NCH )
So why isn't any action being taken against those social workers involved in the Rochdale ritual Satanic Abuse Case ? ( In in this case, the BBC broadcast a programme documenting the recorded evidence against social workers involved in perjured statements and actual physical abuse.)
ANSWER: NCH is the leading child protection organisation promoting the idea that ritual satanic abuse exists in this country. Even though there is no evidence that it happens.
The House of Commons has ever so quietly replaced Eton and Harrow with social workers. No wonder there is all the smoke and mirrors involved in protecting the delinquent and dysfunctional social workers who have been involved in the False Allegation Industry. Their activities are rife in the Family Courts!
Some of the social workers are also involved with the adoption and fostering agencies. So the conveyor belt is fully manned, front and back!
No wonder they are concerned to continue the secrecy of the Family Courts !
Enquiries are currently perusing leads to follow up social workers who have foster care agency and/or adoption agency connections. This is presently under way.
The huge number of social workers now in Parliament cannot be compared with lawyers or others, simply because social workers are limited to one employer...The State.
Lawyers and doctors traverse a wide area within their disciplines. They function as lawyers and doctors in the private or the public sector.
Social workers are definitely and only, State Employees, with a particular esprit de corps. They are now ( and have been since New Labour came to power ) in a very ascendant role, making policy that is unmistakably interventionist and prescriptive.
Could the immunity now accorded to social workers engaged in perjury and other offences committed in the Family Courts, be the direct consequence of the influence of the huge number of ex-social workers now in Parliament?