HELLO!!! LET ME
INTRODUCE

MYSELF

Ian Josephs M.A. (Oxon)

http://www.forced-adoption.com

New email!

ianjosephs1601@gmail.com

Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1N9r2Vieg  A mother screams in agony as her newborn baby is ripped from her arms……….

 

Can this really be happening in the UK, ?

Forced adoptions-Secret family Courts- Babies snatched at birth for future risk- Protesting parents jailed if named on line- Children in care gagged and isolated-FREE SPEECH suppressed.

Yes it can ……… and Yes it is ! 

1:Every year,hundreds of babies are taken from their mothers AT BIRTH for alleged risk of some harm in the future and given away to complete strangers for forced adoption by social workers backed up by secret family courts..Thousands of children of all ages each year are taken from mostly law abiding parents by judges and social workers in these same SECRET Family Courts .Relatives and friends are routinely forbidden to enter the court.Accredited journalists can now attend but are forbidden to publish names of local authorities or parents and cannot publish any dialogue spoken in the court.Consequently they rarely bother to come!

Secret court jails father for sending son 21st birthday greeting on Facebook after he was gagged from naming him

By Sue Reid, Daily Mail, 31 May 2013

•Garry Johnson breached gagging order stopping him publicly naming son
•46-year-old brought up his son and still lives with him
•Judge sent father to prison for contempt at a closed-doors family court
•Case certain to fuel concerns about Britain’s network of secret courts

A father has been jailed at a secret court hearing for sending a Facebook message to his grown-up son on his 21st birthday.

Garry Johnson, 46, breached a draconian gagging order which stops him publicly naming his son, Sam, whom he has brought up and who still lives with him.

In a case which is certain to fuel concerns about Britain’s shadowy network of secret courts, a judge sent the former music executive to prison for contempt at a closed-doors family court hearing in Essex at the beginning of last month .

He was not arrested by police or even represented by a lawyer.

The order silencing Mr Johnson – which follows an acrimonious divorce eight years ago – means he cannot mention either of his boys, 21-year-old Sam and Adam, 18, in public, even by congratulating them in a local newspaper announcement when they get engaged, married or have children in the future.

The extraordinary gag is set to last until the end of his life, although his boys are now adults. Last night they condemned their father’s jailing as ‘cruel and ludicrous’.

Most of the parents who ask me for help after what they describe as an unfair hearing tell similar stories.
They were told by their legal team that they could not speak in court or call friends and relatives as witnessess.
Their solicitor or barrister explained that they would speak for the parent(s) and conduct the case.
Most parents asked them to fight the care order or adoption placement to the bitter end only to find their lawyer agree to the orders contrary to their instructions on the grounds that it was “better to save our ammunition for later”
Alas “later never came ! ”
Lastly the parents are usually told they cannot appeal and if they do ask for permission to appeal quoting the unfairness of the court as above their request is returned as “having no merit”!
Such is the justice in our secret family courts !

2:-Parents are jailed for contempt of court if they reveal details of family court proceedings or protest publicly identifying themselves;FREE SPEECH IS SUPPRESSED as is the democratic right of peaceful protest.Family courts GAG “difficult” parents by making orders forbidding them to discuss their cases with anyone except solicitors for 18 years after their  babies have been taken .They are also frequently forbidden via court injunction under the threat of jail from putting any information about their children or themselves on facebook or on line !Free speech in democratic UK is eliminated by Family Courts supposedly to protect the privacy of the babies but in reality to prevent parents complaining about perceived injustices when their babies and young children are taken and confiscated.

The Daily Telegraph (14.11.2013) has now given prominence to a statement of intent  by England’s most senior family judge:

One of England’s most senior judges has pledged to expose family courts to the “glare of publicity” to avoid miscarriages of justice and restore public confidence. Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, said parents of children taken into care must no longer be gagged by the courts and journalists should be allowed to report on proceedings.

DAILY MAIL

Top judge’s war on secret courts: Family hearings must be exposed to ‘glare of publicity’

• Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court  said parents of children taken into care should no longer be gagged by courts
  
• Judgment came in case of parents whose four children taken into state care
• Council tried to ban video of seizure in April by social workers and police 
  
• Sir James said there is a ‘pressing need’ for workings of family courts to be opened up to public scrutiny

By STEVE DOUGHTY, SOCIAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

PUBLISHED: 23:50, 5 September 2013 | UPDATED: 01:28, 6 September 2013

 

One of Britain’s most senior judges vowed yesterday to expose family courts to ‘the glare of publicity’ after decades of obsessive secrecy.

In a landmark ruling, Sir James Munby said parents of children taken into care must no longer be gagged by the courts and the public should be told what social workers are up to.

Sir James, who is president of the Family Division of the High Court, said the removal of children from their families had become the most drastic matter judges dealt with now there was no death penalty. He said the rulings could affect mothers for ‘upwards of 60 or even 70 years’ and children for even longer.

There was a ‘pressing need’ for the workings of the family courts to be opened to public view and the arguments for scrutiny and public accountability were compelling.

Parents must be given the freedom to criticise judges, the courts and social workers, and the Press must be free to report what has happened without the interference of judges, Sir James added. The break-up of families by the state must no longer happen in secret, on the pretext of protecting the children involved.

The Mail has reported numerous cases where the names of social workers, experts who advise the courts and even the names of councils have been kept under legal wraps. The voices of those whose families are split up by social workers and kept apart on the orders of family court judges have been routinely silenced. 

ALAS SIR JAMES HAS  NOW RETIRED  FRUSTRATED AS HE HIMSELF HAS SAID BY THE SLOW PACE OF REFORM

 

3:-Babies are taken at birth for “risk of future emotional harm”.Families are broken up solely on the basis of “predictions of the future” made in court by social workers and/or psychologists.We all suffer some degree of emotional harm in our lives but none of us can know with any certainty when it will happen or what form it will take.Future predictions should never be enough to break up famlies.Forced adoption should be abolished and so called risk assessments should be banned !

All I ask for in the UK is one simple piece of legislation .
REPEAL THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 !
That would have the following results :-
1) Abolition of forced adoption (adoptions contested by parent(s) )
2)No more care orders made on children merely considered “likely”to suffer significant harm even though no harm has actually been suffered.
3) Freedom for parents to protest publicly if their children were taken into care (identifying themselves and their babies or young children without threats of jail !)
4)Parents would have the right to appoint a friend or relative to represent them in court and that person would have the same right of audience as a solicitor.

All those 4 points were valid before 1989 and should in the name of human rights,free speech and undisturbed family life be valid again
REPEAL THE CHILDREN ACT !!!!!

A TRUE STORY

 THAT IS REPEATED AGAIN AND AGAIN   

T’was the night before Christmas,the four children slept
The “ss” were coming,their mother just wept!
Five burly policemen soon broke down the door,
We’ve come for your children,we must take all four!
The “ss” have told you “keep perfectly calm”
Your kids are at risk of emotional harm!
So struggling and kicking and screaming with fright
Four little children went off in the night!
The mother sat weeping, her children were lost
Adoption the target, they don’t count the cost!
They snatch newborn babies with never a smile,
Each one an achievement to add to the file…………….
IAN

 

CHRISTOPHER BOOKER WROTE IN THE TELEGRAPH :-

 

4:- Law abiding but sometimes imperfect parents are powerless to deny accusations of future risk by so called experts, or to then prevent their children being forcibly adopted by strangers. Once the children’s names have been changed and “new” birth certificates have been issued, contact with birth parents is usually lost for life. ;That is in effect “Punishment without crime.”

Why do we have laws if we treat those who keep them (parents etc) worse than those who break them (criminals etc)

When they talk about “risk of future harm” and want to make risk assessments on you……….I say “RISK ASSESSMENTS  ON PARENTS SHOULD BE BANNED” as noone can foretell the future with any certainty.

Clearly a police officer can arrest you if you commit a crime……….But can he arrest you because he thinks there is a risk that you will commit a crime next year??????

SOCIAL WORKERS HOWEVER BELIEVE IN PUNISHING PARENTS AND CHILDREN BY FORCED ADOPTION BECAUSE THEY PREDICT POSSIBLE HARM IN THE FUTURE !

 

JUDICIAL COURT STATISTICS (page 26)

In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases,(cases where the dispute is between a local authority and parents) including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.

Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?Legal aid lawyers (often recommended to parents by “helpful social workers”) inevitably speak “for parents” (effectively gagging them) and agree to everything that the local authority demand ! Who needs a lawyer to surrender?Anyone can do that !

Most family court lawyers are professional losers !!

Judicial and Court statistics 2011 – Gov.uk

BASIC ADVICE FOR ALL PARENTS WHEN THEIR CHILDREN ARE TAKEN BY SOCIAL SERVICES

 

1)Never obey social workers or believe anything they say as they have no authority.Only police and judges(in court) can tell you what to do and get you arrested if you refuse to do what they tell you .Reply to social workers who question you that you have been advised not to speak to them until court proceedings have finished;Never let them in your house unless police are present.

2)Never hire a family court solicitor or barrister ;Most are” professional losers “who work closely with social workers and who stop parents from speaking directly to the judge to present their evidence.Parents are therefore strongly advised to represent themselves so they can at least speak !

3)Never sign any document pushed onto you by a stranger ! Sign only  for things you need to rent,buy,or need to make your life better.If you have been bullied into signing a section 20 remember when your kids have gone  that you can demand the return of your children at any time .

4) Never lie to children especially if they have been snatched by Social Services Tell them right from the start that social workers are wicked people who steal children for money .Tell them to say they cannot answer questions from anyone they don’t know unless their mother or father are present.

5)You must be the nicest person in court to have any chance of winning !Never be tempted in court to attack social workers or “the system” or you will lose your case. Try instead to say social workers usually do a great job but in your case they made a terrible mistake that now needs putting right !

6)Usually  Your best defence in court is to say (if true) that none of your children have ever been seriously injured or seriously ill under your care ;Risks of future harm are guesswork .A police officer can arrest you if you commit a crime but not if he thinks you will commit one next year !

7) If possible you should say you have no criminal record ,no problems with drugs or alcohol ,no mental problems and no involvement with domestic violence; When one or more of these are not true try to show there is no danger from them now .Punishment without any actual crime is wrong

8)The law says “Adoption is a last resort when nothing else will do “ and also that when children cannot live with parents they should be placed with relatives if possible. Try to show that other remedies WILL DO like returning to a parent or relative or both combined

5:-When children are taken into care ,phones and laptops are routinely confiscated to isolate them from family and all their friends.Murderers in prison are treated better……..Hardened criminals can phone out and can discuss anything they like with visiting family and friends.

“When a child is placed in care, parents share PR equally with the local authority (LA), which means parents have a right to make key decisions about their children with the council. If there is a disagreement between parents and the LA, the issue must go to court and be decided by a judge.”

Remember this law if your child is in care and you are having an argument with social services decisions !

6:-Parents can visit children in foster care at closely supervised contact sessions but they have to sign an agreement accepting the following. “They are forbidden to discuss the possibility of coming home, court proceedings, or sexual /physical abuse suffered in foster care “

Judges in family courts can and do make orders forbidding law abiding parents who accuse each other of child abuse to contact their children by letter,phone,text or email until the children are 18 or even longer. .Unauthorised contact(direct or indirect) with children by parents even if they  have never harmed their children or anyone else, is punished by jail for contempt !

Parents who have never been convicted in a criminal court of a serious crime against children should never be deprived of contact (supervised if deemed necessary) with their own children and free speech between them should never be forbidden !

Mark Harris got 3 MONTHS JAIL for waving from his house at his daughters passing in the street.(Criminal cases can of course be reported).

Vicky Hague (name raised in Parliament) believed her 9 year old daughter who had accused her own father of sexually abusing her. The court however believed she had been coached by her mother to say such things , gave custody to the father and forbade Vicky from seeing or communicating with her daughter.

 

Vicky was later sentenced to 3 YEARS jail(later reduced on appeal) for speaking to her daughter at a filling station when the father (with the daughter) drove in for petrol;She was later again in jail for merely attempting to send a birthday card from her step daughter to her own daughter.She gave it to the local vicar to pass on but he gave it to the police!She saved her unborn baby daughter by fleeing to France before the “SS” could take her and she is now a successful racehorse trainer in France at Maisons- Laffitte.

The latest news is that her husband David Tune (International athlete representing great Britain)has been BANNED for life by U.K Athletics from coaching juniors because he has been sexually molesting an under age girl and grooming juniors under his care ! It now looks certain that Vicky was speaking the truth ten years ago and that she was jailed and separated from her daughter for nothing !!

 

 Search GOV.UK 

1. Home
2. Crime, justice and law
3. Your rights and the law

Being arrested: your rights

How long you can be held in custody

The police can hold you for up to 24 hours before they have to charge you with a crime or release you.

They can apply to hold you for up to 36 or 96 hours if you’re suspected of a serious crime, such as murder.

You can be held without charge for up to 14 days If you’re arrested under the Terrorism Act.

 

7:-Foreign children in care are forbidden  to speak their own language with each other or at contact with parents. English is obligatory no matter how limited.Any emotional harm caused by this is disregarded………..

 

Care leavers would all be much relieved if Social Services abandoned their claim (made so often in the family courts) that those who spend years in care without parents have no experience of family life and therefore are unfit to be parents themselves !
Many many children are removed for fostercare or adoption on this basis even though this theory is in effect a condemnation of a care system that ruins the chances of parenthood and happy family life for so many in its care.

8:-Children in care often suffer severe abuse or neglect;100,000 +children are in UK care (80,000+ in England).On average,10,000+/year go missing  according to the survey made by the All Party Parliamentary Group;How many end up as slaves or sex toys we cannot know.

A report comes after findings by the Children’s Commissioner last year that three quarters of children in care are ping ponged around the care system.
The Cardiff University report, “Keeping Safe? An analysis of the outcomes of work with sexually exploited young people in Wales”, which was written by Dr Sophie Hallett, used case records of 205 children involved with social services in just one Welsh local authority and concluded that the more moves a child experiences, the greater their chances of becoming victims of sexual exploitation.
In one case, a child was moved 57 times.

9:-Taking  children from uncooperative parents and putting them into care is an act full of danger not rescue !A slight risk from parents is changed by the family courts into the much greater risk of State Care as surveys have estimated that nearly half of the street prostitutes and also the criminals now in jail were in care as children.

Fewer than 1% of children and young people are in the care of local authorities, but a third of boys and 61% of girls in custody either are in care or have been, Lord Laming – a former probation officer and social worker – said.

10:- Fostering and adoption agencies make millions of £s in profits  . “Special” schools (for children who run away from “care” or who are difficult )charge local authorities 3-4000£/week which is more than 3 times the fees required at Eton.

MONEY MADE FROM FORCED ADOPTION MISERY ! What price was YOUR child??

Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies
Inter-agency fee levels and guidance
Inter-agency fee levels 2020-21 – for introduction from 1 April 2020
The inter-agency fee levels from 1 April 2020 – 31 March 2021 are as follows:
Number of children Fee level
For 1 child £32,063
For 2 children £51,714
For 3 children £70,331
For 4 children £80,674
For 5 or more children To be negotiated on an ongoing basis
Ongoing supervision per child £889
An additional weighting of 10% applies for agencies based in the Greater London.
2020. This is defined by the date that the child(ren) move in with the prospective

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY ABOUT FORCED ADOPTION,??

 “ADOPTION IS A LAST RESORT WHEN NOTHING ELSE WILL DO” That is the law …..  But countries like France,Italy,Spain,and Italy do not allow adoption of children whose parents are fighting to keep them .That means that these Latin countries have found other remedies in difficult situations WITHOUT resorting to adoption; So adoption is chosen in UK  deliberately rather than any of the remedies used in other countries such as increased family support,closer supervision or even fostering.

Clearly in the UK adoption is not a last resort at all !

Governmental statistics indicate that of the child placed for adoption in England in the year ending March 2014, 4,870 were completed without parental consent, with only 130 the result of voluntary placements on the part of the parents. This constituted 96% of all adoptions. (Department for Education, “Statistics: looked-after children” (30 September 2014))

Statistics in this area are difficult to come by from other jurisdictions, and in particular statistics disaggregated in this way are not easily accessible. Research indicates that the Netherlands only have about 20 adoptions per year in total (though it is unclear whether these are with or without parental consent), while France generally has around 700, however, 600 of these are as a result of an anonymous birth (“accouchement sous X”).

ILLEGAL CHILD REMOVAL

In R (on the application of G) v Nottingham City Council [2008] EWHC 400 (Admin) Munby J considered removal of a child from a mother without either court order or consent under s.20 of the CA 1989.  In finding that removal to be unlawful the Court relied on Article 8 of the HRA and concluded that the interference with the family life was not justifiable under Article 8(2) as a result

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2675395/Judge-blasts-social-workers-telling-not-law-remove-nine-year-old-family-away-without-consent.html

Yes, the punishment dealt out to parents by family courts is far more severe than anything the criminal courts can do ;yet the evidence needed is only the “balance of probabilities”(51+%) instead of “beyond reasonable doubt” .This must be very wrong !

In the matter of A (A Child) v Darlington Borough Council and (1) M (2) F (3) GM and GF and (4) A (by his children’s guardian) [2015] EWFC 11 (“Re A”) – read judgment

In a scathing judgment, the president of the Family Division has condemned as “social engineering” a local authority’s application to remove a baby boy permanently from the care of his father and place him for adoption.

The case was, he said,

an object lesson in, almost textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.

In addressing these failings, Munby P identified “three fundamentally important points”.

The first point, vital for practitioners on the ground, is that findings of fact must be based on evidence, not suspicion and speculation. As the judge observed, material in local authority files is often second or third-hand hearsay. Although hearsay is admissible in care proceedings, if challenged, a local authority will have to establish its accuracy.

In this case, the original social worker’s “concerns” about the father were repeated and adopted by other practitioners (including the children’s guardian), without further enquiry. When the case reached court, that enquiry revealed what Sir James described witheringly as

a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations.

Stripped of suspicion, speculation and hyperbole, the majority of the factual case collapsed and was reduced to familiar assertions that the parent “lacks honesty with professionals” or “minimises matters of importance”.

The second fundamental point is that a successful application for a care order must link the facts relied on to the threshold test, i.e., why do the facts asserted lead to the conclusion that the child is at risk of suffering significant harm?

In this case, the local authority thus had to show how the fact that the father had had sex with an underage girl of 13 when he was aged 17, affected his ability to care for his baby son some six years later. How did the social worker’s complaint that he “failed to acknowledge the immoral nature of the offences committed” support the assessment that his child was at risk of neglect?

The judge was equally unimpressed by the local authority’s “concern” about the father’s involvement with the English Defence League (EDL) – referred to in the social worker’s assessment as “a barbaric protestor group”. The fact (“if fact it be”) that the father was a member of the EDL (“probably only for a short time”) was, he said,

neither here nor there, whatever one may think of its beliefs or policies.

The social worker’s repeated reference to the “immoral aspects of the father’s behaviour”, prompted the judge’s third fundamental point that, in the “wise and powerful words” of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent…some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.

1. an

Kent County Council paying temporary social workers £620 a day

Read all comments | 11

Paul Francis

pfrancis@thekmgroup.co.uk

Top 10 children’s care providers made £300m profits, says Observer

The 10 largest providers of children’s social care placements made more than £300m in profits last year, according to research seen and reported by the Observer. Profits among the top 20 providers of care home and fostering places now amount to 20 per cent of their income.

The report follows publication earlier this month of a report by the Competition and Markets Authority in which it expressed concerns about financial stability of private children’s home providers and high profits in the sector.

For the Observer report, click here. For the CMA report, click here.

27/3/22

 

NUMBER OF BABIES TAKEN AT BIRTH DOUBLES !!

The first ever national study of newborns in England has revealed that the number of babies taken into care who are less than one week old, has more than doubled in a decade. In most instances, babies would have been taken from their mothers while still in hospital.

The research, which was carried out by Professor Karen Broadhurst, on behalf of the Nuffield Foundation, and which used data supplied by CAFCASS, found that care proceedings were issued for 1,039 newborns in 2007/8, (32% of all cases involving an infant age under 1 year). However, this number had more than doubled at 2,447 newborns (42% of all infant cases), by 2017.

In 2002 Tom Cruise starred in the film “Minority Report” .In the year 2054 citizens were punished for crimes they were predicted to commit in the future ! That,believe it or not is the situation for British parents right NOW today !!

 

 

Social workers reveal reality of adoption scorecards

https://www.communitycare.co.uk › 2012/05/23 › socia…

May 23, 2012 — Heather Freeman, adoption services team manager at Bournemouth, says: “We are happy with our scores and

feel it is reflective of the service.

Cash prize for council that hit adoption targets

(Once children are adopted the government no longer has to pay exhorbitant fostering fees !)

 

 

Elsie Scully-Hicks: ‘Chances missed’ to save murdered baby

https://www.bbc.com › news › uk-wales-south-east-wal…

Aug 2, 2018 — Personal trainer Scully–Hicks, originally of Delabole, Cornwall, had denied murdering the 18-month-old but was found guilty at Cardiff Crown

 

 AND EVEN WORSE !!

Pictured: One-year-old boy who died of head injury after he was placed with couple for adoption as police arrest man, 34, and woman, 37, on suspicion of murder

• Leiland Corkill rushed to Furness General Hospital with head injury last month
• He was later taken to Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, in Liverpool, where he died
• Two people, from Barrow, were arrested on suspicion of murder following death 

By LIZ HULL FOR THE DAILY MAIL and JAMES ROBINSON and FAITH RIDLER FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 17:28 GMT, 14 February 2021 | UPDATED: 11:56 GMT, 15 February 2021

•  
•  
• e-

A couple have been arrested in connection with the murder of a baby boy they were trying to adopt.

One-year-old Leiland Corkill was taken into care soon after his birth in December 2019.

He later lived with prospective adoptive parents in Barrow-in-Furness, but on January 6 paramedics were called to a property amid reports a baby had suffered a serious head injury.

Leiland was taken to Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool but died the following day.

A 34-year-old man and a 37-year-old woman were arrested on suspicion of murder, assault, ill-treatment and neglect, police said on Saturday. 

The couple have been released on bail while a police investigation is ongoing.   

At the time of Leiland’s death he was under the care of Cumbria County Council – which was previously criticised over the death of 13-month-old Poppi Worthington in December 2012.

An inquest found Poppi was sexually abused by her father Paul Worthington but blunders by social services and police meant he was never charged in connection with her death. +4

•  

One-year-old Leiland Corkill (pictured) was rushed to Furness General Hospital in Cumbria with a severe head injury on January 6+4

•  

Pictures show ‘happy and cheerful’ Leiland Corkill with his natural mother, Laura, before his tragic death last month

It is understood Leiland’s birth mother, Laura Corkill, 37, visited her son regularly while the adoption process was ongoing. 

His natural grandmother, Yvonne Corkill, 57, said both she and her daughter were at his side when he died. 

He has been buried in their home town of Whitehaven, Cumbria. Mrs Corkill told The Sun on Sunday: ‘It’s horrible. He was a happy, cheerful little boy and we can’t believe what’s happened.

CAN PARENTS BEAT THE “SS” AND GET THEIR CHILDREN BACK ?

YES THEY CAN !!

I’m pretty sure you won’t remember me but…

I called you years ago in an absolute state because my children were taken from me due to my “mental health” after I spoke to you I did exactly what you said and I got them back within 4 weeks, 

I’m sorry I never really reached out again but you saved my family and you are truly and amazing person

Thank you!

Sarah

Dear Ian,                                                           23/10/20

Just wanted to say a massive thank you to you for all your advice and all the help and support you have given me and my daughter throughout this year,despite social services trying every trick in the book to remove my granddaughters from my daughter the court today ruled they are to stay with their mum,they granted a child arrangements order and extended the non molestation order.Although this is a great relief for us I don’t think we’ll ever truly relax after experiencing the lengths they will go to to snatch babies,and if it weren’t for all the good advice you gave us, particularly in sacking the solicitor in the beginning,the outcome would have been very different.I cannot thank you enough for always calling me back and telling us what we needed to do, I feel so fortunate to have found you.I have attached a letter from my 78 year old mother the children’s great-grandmother as she also wanted to show her gratitude,you have been a great source of comfort and your advice is invaluable.

Thank you so much

Sam

 

Dear Mr Ian Josephs,

                                     I wanted to thank you for all your help saving our son from social services. You were the only one who told me to fight back. What I uncovered was explosive.

I found out my son was been taken to order. A teacher had taken to my son and was taking him for special afternoon tea’s in her office.

This teacher also called me a feeder and called social services. 

What I didn’t know was this teacher was been assessed for adoption and fostering. She also was best friends with the social worker involved on my son’s case. 

No matter what we did it was never good enough. We’d do what they asked and they’d simply move the goal posts. They said my son wasn’t active enough so I enrolled him in a different sport activity every evening straight after school. But it still wasn’t enough and they wanted more. It got to the stage we weren’t home until 7 pm with all the sport activities. 

That is when I knew something was really wrong. No matter what we did it was never good enough. I then reached out to you. 

I then started to fight back I film and recorded everything. 

What I got in that footage caused the head of children’s services to come to my home and  apologise to me. For the distress this social worker had caused. She said that this worker was normally very good there had obviously been a clash of personalities. They agreed to put a new worker on our case and overnight it all changed. Within weeks our case was closed. 

If you didn’t tell me to fight my own ground and use no solicitor my son would no longer be with us. I did everything what you said and stopped listening to them. 

We truly thank you for your advice. 

Now my son is nearly 16 and studying civil engineering. He is a brilliant student and makes us proud every single day. 

What he suffered in them day’s he’ll always remember and he has such hate and anger, but I’ve explained to him carrying bitterness will effect his life and he needs to move on. 

I think he’ll pursue court action soon he feels so angry still. They did so much emotional harm to our son. He started making himself sick at 10 yrs old. Due to pressure of losing weight. One evening I heard him been sick and caught him, he’d admitted he’d been doing it for month’s. He is now in a far better place. 

I just wanted to thank you and update you. 

I hope you and your family are safe and well. 

Mrs J Lax

Hello Ian

Hope you are well.

To my RELIEF, my daughter’s(17 years old) school wrote to us confirming that they are removing her from the school roll because they have been unable to make contact with us.

Despite telling the school that she will not be returning they instructed the school social worker to bully us to return to school after my daughter had an argument with a teacher and she was consequently excluded.

I took your advice to ignore them completely. I did not respond to letters, answer the phone or answer my door to her or the police since December 2020. The social worker got so frustrated she made up a lie stating my daughter was vulnerable in order for the police to force entry which they did and I still ignored her.

As a result of totally ignoring them, they have left us alone in PEACE and your advice has been so beneficial. It’s very hard to ignore someone when they are causing so much trauma but works!!!! I have proved this, thanks to you. I wish families would do this it would make social services jobs so much harder.

My front door got destroyed as a result but at least my daughter’s life has not.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK !!!!

Regards Christine

 

Hi Ian and John, 

I hope this email finds you well? 

It’s this time of year again when you both pop into my head that I am always drawn back to my near loss of my child through no fault of my own. You may remember my medical records got mixed up another woman who was an suicidal alcoholic (social workers believed she was me and put my child on the child protection register) 

Anyhow I got in touch with Ian from a suggestion from John Hemming and started my plan before the social workers decided to believe me and closed the case. 

I cannot tell you the stress, the long trauma I still suffer with today, especially the nightmares and flashbacks of ‘what if’ and how our life got trashed for 12 months. The damage is real and lasting still, sadly. 

Ian, it’s now March 2021 and I still have my boy 🙂 he’s thriving, almost 11 years old and I have been entirely left alone by the authority since all those years ago, thanks to you. 

Your work / mission is precious, needed and I know how ever many emails I send you every so often won’t do, I just hope you know how special you are to us. I get to go on holidays, smile, laugh and have a family life. It’s worth everything to me. I couldn’t even comprehend what life might have been. 

I even sued the original department who mixed up my medical records. Turns out it was the south western ambulance service – they have now entirely changed their procedure to ensure this won’t happen again (who believes that) the money will go on my mental health in whatever capacity that is. It was a figure of £24,000. They should have given me millions. But atlas – life will go on. 

Please continue to fight, continue your good work – smile today and know another family remains intact because of you and tenacity. 

We are grateful, forever, 

Thank you Ian 

From,

Sarah and Noah 🙂 

“  Birds of a feather flock together” NO CONSPIRACY ALLEGED OR NECESSARY !!

Social workers, judges, guardians ,family court solicitors and their carefully chosen “experts” always “stick together” never admitting a mistake and  are fanatically eager to cover up rather than rectify any errors of judgement they have made .Just like our wonderful M.Ps fiddling their expenses ! No conspiracy ,just SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH ! Remember :- Those who live off the system protect the system!

“There is nothing so dangerous as a bunch of “do-gooders” !!

YES most of these deluded social workers ,guardians,Cafcass officers,”hired experts”,legal aid solicitors and barristers or those hired by the local authority, probably think they are doing ‘the right thing’! (but make more than a few bob on the side whilst doing it !) Just like some years ago it was considered right and respectable to send gays to prison ,or to send 150,000 children (many said wrongly to be orphans), to Australia for forced labour and sex abuse by the “Christian Brothers”. In Saudi Arabia and in some neighbouring countries it is believed right and proper to cut the hands off thieves,to stone to death adulterous women,and to put to death any person of Islamic faith who later renounces that religion.Only five hundred years ago in England it was considered right for Catholics and Protestants to burn  each other alive at the stake for daring to differ in their opinions!

No conspiracies ,just a lot of people doing what they think right when in fact they are in my opinion terribly wrong. Who am I to decide anyone is doing wrong or to declare that “punishment without crime” and” forced adoptions” are abominations? Just someone with the same right to express my opinions as anyone else.No more,no less !

 

How to conduct an appeal:-

You need to show either

1:- That circumstances have changed for the better since the previous decision; (eg no longer with a violent Partner,no longer dépendent on drugs or alcohol,cured of depression or other condition that could adversely affect children etc)

or 2:-That the judge made a mistake in law  (eg did not consider kinship care,made sexist or racist or simply very impolite  remarksabout you without justification,did not demonstrate that adoption really was a last resort in your case because the judge neglected to show that all alternative solutions were not possible etc.)

In re P (A child) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/3.html

The Court of Appeal conclude that a Judge who made a Placement Order (thus authorising a child to be placed for adoption) had not conducted a sufficiently robust analysis of the relative merits of the placement options before making that decision.  The Judge had set out in the judgment what he was required to do, but the Court of Appeal say that he didn’t actually do it.

or 3:- That the previous hearing was unfair to you.(eg that you were not informed of the hearing,that you were not allowed to call witnesses to court such as your doctor,your children, your extended family,or even your new Partner,that you were wrongly informed that you could not appeal and only now have found out that you have the right to ask for an oral hearing asking permission to appeal.that you live a long way from the court and had no Financial means to make the return journey three or more  times for a hearing of three days or more, etc )

 

Hello Ian

Hope you are well.

To my RELIEF, my daughter’s(17 years old) school wrote to us confirming that they are removing her from the school roll because they have been unable to make contact with us.

Despite telling the school that she will not be returning they instructed the school social worker to bully us to return to school after my daughter had an argument with a teacher and she was consequently excluded.

I took your advice to ignore them completely. I did not respond to letters, answer the phone or answer my door to her or the police since December 2020. The social worker got so frustrated she made up a lie stating my daughter was vulnerable in order for the police to force entry which they did and I still ignored her.

As a result of totally ignoring them, they have left us alone in PEACE and your advice has been so beneficial. It’s very hard to ignore someone when they are causing so much trauma but works!!!! I have proved this, thanks to you. I wish families would do this it would make social services jobs so much harder.

My front door got destroyed as a result but at least my daughter’s life has not.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK !!!!

SABOTAGE THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF YOUR CHILDREN !!

IF the “SS” threaten to take your children for adoption,make sure they never forget you .Hug them tight at “last contact” so they cannot easily be removed while you repeat to them that wicked people HAVE KIDNAPPED THEM and are stealing them for money ,and to say no to adoption when they try to give them a horrible new mummy and daddy !

THIS AT LEAST SHOULD HELP TO SABOTAGE ANY UNWANTED ADOPTIONS AND MAKE SURE YOUR KIDS WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU AND GET IN TOUCH LATER .Not many “adopters” will want to take in a child who has been told to say “NO” to adoption in any case.

Remember also that since April 2014 the new section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, makes provision for applications for contact AFTER an adoption order has been made.

Google “Winona Varney” or “Von and Tammy”TO SEE SUCCESS STORIES.

MESSAGE TO MOTHERS WHOSE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN FORCED ADOPTED !

All is not lost ,you have to try and find your adopted children.No law stops you plastering their photos when small with brief stories all over the internet,under facebook,twitter,Genes united,friends united, and other similar sites.They may even be looking for you right now !

Here are two success stories ;- 1:- Winona Varney and her sister Danielle in which I was very much involved who I helped to happily reunite with their birth mother, and 2:- Von and Tammy who look more like sisters than mother and daughter and were happily reunited for good once they found each other.

1    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7958099/She-defied-the-law-to-find-her-mother.html–
Remember also that social workers often LIE and say a child has been adopted when it is in fact still in care ! Only believe a letter from the court not words from the SS !

By Christopher Booker

7:25PM BST 21 Aug 2010

167 Comments

2 Von and Tammy on ITV local news – YouTube

SECTION 20

Munby P considered that the recent case-law illustrated to an alarming degree four separate problems, all too often seen in combination:

1. The failure of the LA to obtain informed consent from the parent(s) at the outset. LAs must heed the guidance set out by Hedley J in Coventry City Council v C, B, CA and CH [2012] EWHC 2190 (Fam), [2013] 2 FLR 987 at para 46 (cited at [164]). Where a parent is not fluent in English it is vital to ensure the parent has a proper understanding of what precisely they are being asked to agree to.
2. The form in which the consent of the parent(s) is recorded. A feature of recent cases has been the serious deficiencies apparent in the drafting off too many s.20 agreements.
3. Far too often the arrangements under s.20 are allowed to continue for far too long.
4. The seeming reluctance of LAs to return the child to the parent(s) immediately upon a withdrawal of parental consent. A LA which fails to permit a parent to remove a child in circumstances within s.20(8) acts unlawfully, exposes itself to proceedings at the suit of the parent and may even by guilty of a criminal offence. Munby P was ‘exceedingly sceptical’ as to whether a parent can lawfully contract out of s.20(8) in advance by agreeing with the LA to give a specified period of notice before exercising their s.20(8) right to remove the child.

Munby P stated that for the future good practice requires the following, in addition to proper compliance with the guidance given by Hedley J:

1. Wherever possible the agreement of a parent to the accommodation of their child under s.20 should be properly recorded in writing and evidenced by the parent’s signature.
2. The written document should be clear and precise as to is terms, drafted in simple and straight-forward language that the particular parent can readily understand.
3. The written document should spell out, following the language of section 20(8), that the parent can ‘remove the child’ from the LA accommodation ‘at any time’.
4. The written document should not seek to impose any fetters on the exercise of the parent’s right under s.20(8).
5. Where the parent is not fluent in English, the written document should be translated into the parent’s own language and the parent should sign the foreign language text, adding, in the parent’s language, words to the effect that ‘I have read this document and I agree to its terms’.

 

The law on leaving your child on their own

The law doesn’t say an age when you can leave a child on their own, but it’s an offence to leave a child alone if it places them at risk.

Use your judgement on how mature your child is before you decide to leave them alone, eg at home or in a car.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) says:

• children under 12 are rarely mature enough to be left alone for a long period of time
• children under 16 shouldn’t be left alone overnight
• babies, toddlers and very young children should never be left alone

Parents can be prosecuted if they leave a child unsupervised ‘in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health’.

One case you can quote that was never brought to court ! Our Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife Samantha forgot their daughter  aged 8 when they both departed  and left her all alone in a busy pub for around 20 minutes before they remembered her existence and went back to fetch her ! That was ruled OK and no laws broken …….

=========================

Breach of conditions of Bail

Revised Practice and Procedure

Breach of conditions of bail is not a Bail Act Offence, nor is it a contempt of court unless there is some additional feature (Ashley [2004] 1 Cr App R 23).

Pre Charge

The police have a power of arrest where conditions imposed on pre-charge bail have been breached (see section 46A PACE 1984 as inserted by CJPOA 1994 Section 29 (2)). Where a person has been re-arrested, section 37 C (2) (b) PACE gives the police the power to release (again) “without charge, either on bail or without bail”. Section 37 C (4) states explicitly that if a person is released on bail under section 37 C (2)(b), then that person shall be subject to whatever conditions applied before the ‘re-arrest’. It appears that there is no power to change conditions of bail at this point.

Post Charge

Section 7 of the Bail Act 1976 confers power upon the Police to arrest a person if the Constable has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is likely to break any of the conditions of his bail or has reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person has broken any of those conditions.

A person so arrested must be brought as soon as practicable, and in any event within 24 hours of his arrest, before a Justice of the Peace of the Petty Sessions for the area in which he was arrested.

Prosecutors are reminded of R v Culley [2007] EWHC 109 which states that where a person has breached their bail, they must not only be brought before the court ‘as soon as is practicable’ but also be dealt with within 24 hours of arrest (see s7 (4) Bail Act 1976).

–Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B:

Precedent The right to breastfeed
*In the matter of unborn baby M; R (on the application of X and another) v Gloucestershire County Council.

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

Domestic Violence not necessarily a sufficient reason to remove a child

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B110.html

This is a set of care proceedings heard in Manchester County Court, but it raises some important issues of wider importance.

It was a case in which the Local Authority obtained an Emergency Protection Order removing IMA in August 2013, and after that Interim Care Orders sanctioning IMA remaining in foster care, up until the final hearing, which took place in August 2014 a year after the initial removal.

The Local Authority had been seeking a plan of adoption, supported by the Guardian, but this had changed to permanent placement with a relative. It is of note that the plan of adoption had been supported by the Agency Decision Makers (whose job it is to assess separately to social workers whether the circumstances of an individual case mean that adoption is the right plan)

The Judge at final hearing found that the threshold criteria were not made out, and thus the child would be going home and no statutory orders would be made.

The threshold criteria was based on the risk of the child being exposed to domestic violence (which is, on the revised wording of the Children Act 1989 a matter which on its own is capable of meeting threshold). That had two aspects really (i) Was father a risk of violence or violent behaviour and (ii) was the child in mother’s care going to be exposed to the father.

The fact that the Judge found that threshold was not met therefore was significant. This wasn’t a case with a suspicious injury which on full investigation was found to be an accident or a peculiar medical condition, but rather that the child ought never really to have been removed. The Judge was not saying that the threshold HAD been met but due to changes the risks had dissipated or become manageable, but that the situation of this family had NEVER crossed the section 31 threshold.

And the Judge had advised the Local Authority in a number of hearings that he was concerned that the section 31 threshold was not made out on the evidence that they had presented and was giving them the opportunity to flesh out their evidence if they had more information which was not before the Court. He told them that on 17th February 2014, 14th April 2014 and 23rd June, before making it official at the final hearing by ruling that threshold was not met.

CRIMINAL RECORDS + DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND PARENTS STILL WIN !

See also a very important case where both parents had bad criminal records and previous domestic violence but still recovered their baby from care !If it fits your case because it is similar quote this case to the judge and ask him for similar treatment for you !

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B110.html

ALSO:-N-D (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1226
Judgments (10/09/2014)
Successful appeal against care and placement orders on the basis that the judgment had failed to provide adequate reasoning behind the welfare determination

 Breach of conditions of Bail

Revised Practice and Procedure

Breach of conditions of bail is not a Bail Act Offence, nor is it a contempt of court unless there is some additional feature (Ashley [2004] 1 Cr App R 23).

Pre Charge

The police have a power of arrest where conditions imposed on pre-charge bail have been breached (see section 46A PACE 1984 as inserted by CJPOA 1994 Section 29 (2)). Where a person has been re-arrested, section 37 C (2) (b) PACE gives the police the power to release (again) “without charge, either on bail or without bail”. Section 37 C (4) states explicitly that if a person is released on bail under section 37 C (2)(b), then that person shall be subject to whatever conditions applied before the ‘re-arrest’. It appears that there is no power to change conditions of bail at this point.

The « SS » very rarely break the law of the land ! They behave outrageously because the law allows them to do so.

The 5 simple changes that are the most necessary are as follows:-

1:- Stop the snatching of children “likely to suffer harm” and only allow those to be taken who have actually suffered serious harm.

All other measures are “punishments without crime”  based on  “Crystal ball predictions” and should be banned.

2:-Family courts should be replaced by criminal courts (as it used to be ) operating to criminal standards of proof (innocent until proved guilty etc)

3:-Social workers working in “child protection”should be replaced by trained police (as it used to be)

4:-Parents and children should be granted FREE SPEECH and be allowed to discuss their cases with the media or whoever else they choose

.5:- Abolish “FORCED-ADOPTION” (Adoption actively opposed by the child’s parents)

 

Points to make in court :-

1) A policeman will arrest you for committing a crime but never because he/she thinks you might commit a crime next year !

2)For “xx” years children have thrived under my care and never been seriously hurt or neglected so please do not break up a happy family now ;

3) Experts and judges who try to predict the future based on past records are like racing tipsters who tell you a horse ran well last month so it will win today ;No surprise whenIt comes last…… FUTURE PREDICTIONS ARE RUBBISH;

4) Gypsies with crystal balls and tarot cards can tell the future better than most because they have been doing it all their lives unlike social workers and judges who have no crystal balls but who still remove children based purely on future guesswork .

5) If so called experts could tell the future they would all be billionaires instead of being utterly confused by the corona virus, the long stalemate over Brexit ,and the destruction of the twin towers in New York on 9/11 !

6) There should be no punishment without crime and no children should be removed from a loving parent based on guesswork from amateur prophets

WE MUST STOP PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME !  ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION !Bring back “free speech” and stop legally gagging  parents involved with family courts, and social workers who silence children in “care;”

 

  Forgive me if I repeat myself frequently hoping that this will help you remember what I say !

  We must STOP social workers  acting like police and leave crime detection to the real police !!Abolish social workers altogether and with the money saved enrol more trained police to arrest child beaters and cruel parents.

The police are sometimes under orders to follow instructions given to them by social workers.Nevertheless because police have authority (and social workers have NONE) never make enemies of the police.Let them in your house even if they come with social workers (but never let in social workers who are alone ) If arrested refuse politely to make a statement as you will be told that you have the “right to remain silent ” and that is what you should do so as not to accidentally incriminate yourself admitting to things that may seem to you not to be important.

There must be NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME

HOW TO PUT THINGS RIGHT 

1:-We need a simple change in the law to stop children being taken from parents when no crime against them by parents has been committed and allegations of such crimes have been dismissed.Punishment without crime should be eliminated from our legal system..After all Police arrest those who have committed crimes not those who they believe just might commit crimes next year.

SECTION 31 CHILDREN ACT 1989 is The worst  ever Act of Parliament re children 

)On the application of any local authority or authorised person, the court may make an order—

(a)placing the child with respect to whom the application is made in the care of a designated local authority; or

(b)putting him under the supervision of a designated local authority F1. . ..

(2)A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied—

(a)that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b)that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—

(i)the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or

(ii)the child’s being beyond parental control.

The five words in red have mean’t misery for thousands of innocent parents………..

In fact 4  things changed with the children Act 1989 and those changes caused the massive injustices now suffered by so many parents.

1)Forced Adoption where adoption could take place even when opposed in court by the parents.

2)Children were taken into care not only because they had suffered harm but because they were thought likely to suffer harm at some time in the future !!

3)It was decided that the human right to privacy extended to babies and children making it illegal for parents to protest publicly  when their children were taken.

4)Parents could no longer ask a friend to represent them in court and be sure they would be heard; Only lawyers had an automatic right of audience .

Before 1989 the “SS” were stretching their muscles but parents won their cases unhampered by unsympathetic solicitors……….

All changed for the worse…….

JUDGES AND SOCIAL WORKERS SHOULD LEAVE  FUTURE PREDICTIONS TO  FORTUNE TELLERS AT THE FAIR GROUND AS THEY HAVE  CRYSTAL BALLS,TAROT CARDS, AND YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THAT JUDGES AND SOCIAL WORKERS DO NOT !!

2>

 All intimidated parents should read the para below:-

IGNORE UK SOCIAL WORKERS!! They act like police but in fact they have NO AUTHORITY (they rely on bluff, bullying and fear)  .TRY to remember they are NOT your friends ,they are your ENEMIES !

Ask yourself this question …….. WHY should I obey orders from people who have no authority to give them????

Case closed Ian!

I followed your advice and sent the SW a text that said “I have been advised not to speak to you further and I have told my son he is not to speak to you unless his mum is present”. All of a sudden SS closed the case down. Amazing how quickly they disappear when you stand up for your rights and show them that you are not an easy target.

I will NEVER EVER speak to a SW ever again. Thanks for your sage advice, you are a genius!

Rosie taylor

I’m retiring in oct and happy to spill

2:FREE SPEECH should be restored by law to children in care at contact (they are first isolated by confiscation of phones and laptops,and then forbidden at supervised contact with parents to speak about possibly coming home or about abuse in foster care )They are forbidden to talk to each other or to their parents in their own language if they are foreign.Only English is allowed or contact is stoppedLocal authorities should not have the right to arbitrarily stop contact between non violent parents and children..No gagging of children should be allowed and they should be allowed to phone out to, or send texts to family and friends.

Free speech should also be restored  by law to parents who want to protest publicly on TV or to the media about their kids being removed.If parents do now protest on line or in public they will be jailed for breaching the privacy of their babies (article 8 ECHR);Surely the democratic right to peaceful protest is the cornerstone of any democracy?Babies surely need their mums more than their privacy?

3:-.Forced adoption in large numbers(around 5000/year) make the UK almost unique in Europe where such procedures are rare or in most EU countries non existent. Forced adoption (= adoptions contested in court by parents) should be abolished .All adoptions should be  “Open” so that parents know where and with whom their children are going;Adoption secrecy should be forbidden.

All adoptions must be genuinely voluntary and at the very least indirect contact by phone or email between parents and child should be freely allowed not penalised after adoption.At present children’s names,birth certificates, and locations are changed so that all contact with birth parents is prevented until adopted children are at least 18 and usually in effect for life .False birth certificates should never be issued.

Babies should no longer be routinely snatched at birth for future emotional risk and given to strangers who may well pose far more of a risk to children than loving parents desperately fighting in court to keep those children.One of the greatest risks any child can take is to join the nearly 100,000 children in the UK  “State care system” (80,000 in England)where an average 10,000 children in care are reported missing every year (according to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults) and where almost half those in prison or engaged in street prostitution were themselves in State care as children.

By Martin Beckford and Stephen Adams  Mail on Sunday

Thousands of babies are being put on ‘at risk’ registers by social workers before they are even born, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.New figures released under Freedom of Information laws show that more than 4,000 child protection plans – which are automatically implemented for those registered as at risk – were initiated last year in England for babies still in the womb, which represents a 13 per cent increase over two years.

The figure for the UK as a whole is likely to be nearer 5,000, and hundreds of babies are being taken into care each year within days of birth.

Statistics  that show how much it all costs and how thousands of children run away from wonderful State Care (usually back to their parents !).The parliamentary briefing clearly states “Using the data collected and approach adopted this year we estimate that the average cost of residential care provision per child per week is around £2,900   !!!

MOST of the children reportedly abused by celebrities were “in care” and so were most of the kids groomed and abused by the taxi drivers in Rochdale.So saving perhaps one child in danger of cruelty by parents does not justify putting hundreds more into the dangerous care system,especially as the child saved from possible neglect will often fall “out of the frying pan into the fire” to be lost,abused,or even murdered in foster care or forced adoption, as so many examples show later on in this site .

In the matter of A (A Child) v Darlington Borough Council and (1) M (2) F (3) GM and GF and (4) A (by his children’s guardian) [2015] EWFC 11 (“Re A”) – read judgment

In a scathing judgment, the president of the Family Division has condemned as “social engineering” a local authority’s application to remove a baby boy permanently from the care of his father and place him for adoption.

The case was, he said,

an object lesson in, almost textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.

In addressing these failings, Munby P identified “three fundamentally important points”.

The first point, vital for practitioners on the ground, is that findings of fact must be based on evidence, not suspicion and speculation. As the judge observed, material in local authority files is often second or third-hand hearsay. Although hearsay is admissible in care proceedings, if challenged, a local authority will have to establish its accuracy.

In this case, the original social worker’s “concerns” about the father were repeated and adopted by other practitioners (including the children’s guardian), without further enquiry. When the case reached court, that enquiry revealed what Sir James described witheringly as

a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations.

Stripped of suspicion, speculation and hyperbole, the majority of the factual case collapsed and was reduced to familiar assertions that the parent “lacks honesty with professionals” or “minimises matters of importance”.

The second fundamental point is that a successful application for a care order must link the facts relied on to the threshold test, i.e., why do the facts asserted lead to the conclusion that the child is at risk of suffering significant harm?

In this case, the local authority thus had to show how the fact that the father had had sex with an underage girl of 13 when he was aged 17, affected his ability to care for his baby son some six years later. How did the social worker’s complaint that he “failed to acknowledge the immoral nature of the offences committed” support the assessment that his child was at risk of neglect?

The judge was equally unimpressed by the local authority’s “concern” about the father’s involvement with the English Defence League (EDL) – referred to in the social worker’s assessment as “a barbaric protestor group”. The fact (“if fact it be”) that the father was a member of the EDL (“probably only for a short time”) was, he said,

neither here nor there, whatever one may think of its beliefs or policies.

The social worker’s repeated reference to the “immoral aspects of the father’s behaviour”, prompted the judge’s third fundamental point that, in the “wise and powerful words” of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent…some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.

In the same vein, as Baroness Hale explained in the celebrated Supreme Court decision In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33:

We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the state does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical and mental illnesses or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.

In this case, local authority concerns also included an alleged “history of drug abuse”. Once probed, the evidence established the father “may have taken cannabis on occasions”. However Sir James observed,

the reality is that many parents smoke cannabis on occasions without their children coming to harm… [P]arental abuse of alcohol or drugs of itself and without more is no basis for taking children into care.

On the positive side, the father was recognised to love the child, to be capable of meeting his day-to-day needs and to have shown commitment in supervised contact. Taking account of the “greatly weakened” local authority case and “surveying the wide canvass”, the judge concluded

The judge says “I can accept that the father may not be the best of parents, he may be less than a suitable role model, but that is not enough to justify a care order, let alone adoption.”

para 86

I accept, and find, that there have on occasions been episodes of domestic discord between the father, his mother and more particularly his step-father, that drink has played a significant part in this, that the police have on occasions been called out, and that there was a particularly physical confrontation with violence on 3 December 2013. I accept also that there was some lack of frankness on the part of both the father and his mother in relation to the accounts they gave the local authority of that incident. This history, however, needs to be kept in perspective. Neither the number nor the frequency nor the gravity of these incidents is such, in my judgment, as to cause any major concern. Moreover, it is clear to me, having heard their evidence and watched them carefully throughout the hearing, that, despite their differences and notwithstanding these incidents, the relationship between the father and his mother is, overall, positive and mutually supportive

“[Counsel] seeks to develop Hedley J’s point. He submits that:

‘many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or “model” them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.’

I agree with [counsel]’s submission”.

The other is the observation of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC (para 143):

“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.”

1. I respectfully agree with all of that. It follows that I also agree with what His Honour Judge Jack said in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWFC B192, a judgment that attracted some attention even whilst I was hearing this case:
   1. “I deplore any form of domestic violence and I deplore parents who care for children when they are significantly under the influence of drink. But so far as Mr and Mrs C are concerned there is no evidence that I am aware of that any domestic violence between them or any drinking has had an adverse effect on any children who were in their care at the time when it took place. The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should, I am not condoning that for a moment, but the courts are not in the business of social engineering. The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the courts.”

It boils down to three important principles as elaborated in the case above by Sir James Munby (President of the family courts) and summarised by myself

I SUMMARISE HIS JUDGEMENT AS FOLLOWS :-It boils down to three important principles :-

1:- Hearsay (evidence from persons who do not attend court or take the oath) if contradicted and challenged by a parent in person must be backed up by factual evidence from the L.A and cannot by itself justify a care order.

2:- Even if the allegations against parents are established the local authority must prove that they have caused or will probably cause significant harm to the child or children concerned.

3:-If the lifestyles of the parents are unconventional or immoral or punctuated by occasional noisy domestic spats and episodes of drunkenness those things alone do not justify a care order.S

I accept, and find, that there have on occasions been episodes of domestic discord between the father, his mother and more particularly his step-father, that drink has played a significant part in this, that the police have on occasions been called out, and that there was a particularly physical confrontation with violence on 3 December 2013. I accept also that there was some lack of frankness on the part of both the father and his mother in relation to the accounts they gave the local authority of that incident. This history, however, needs to be kept in perspective. Neither the number nor the frequency nor the gravity of these incidents is such, in my judgment, as to cause any major concern. Moreover, it is clear to me, having heard their evidence and watched them carefully throughout the hearing, that, despite their differences and notwithstanding these incidents, the relationship between the father and his mother is, overall, positive and mutually supportive

The President also agreed with the somewhat controversial remarks of His Honour Judge Jack in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCC B77 (Fam) (emphasis added):

“…The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should, I am not condoning that for a moment, but the courts are not in the business of social engineering. The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the courts.”

 

STATE CARE CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS FOR CHILDREN

Hundreds of children in council care in Nottinghamshire were exposed to sexual abuse by predatory foster carers and residential care staff for decades due to repeated failures to learn from mistakes, an inquiry has found.

In one of the largest inquiries into child sexual abuse to date, both Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire county council were found to have repeatedly exposed vulnerable children to sexual and physical abuse, a report said.

Children who experience the UK’s care system are twice as likely to die earlier than children who remain with their parents, a study has revealed.

The research was led by professor Amanda Sacker at University College London’s (UCL) institute of epidemiology and healthcare and tracked more than 350,000 people between 1971 and 2013, using government data.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) found sexualised behaviour by staff was often “tolerated or overlooked”.

Around 350 people alleged they were abused while in residential or foster care in the county from the 1960s onwards, but the IICSA said the true scale was likely to be higher.

Children suffered abuse, including repeated rapes, sexual assaults and voyeurism, at many council homes as well as in foster care during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

Former foster carer, 58, who raped and sexually abused five children for more than a decade is jailed for 22 years

• Gary Teague raped children he offered his home to, waiting until they were alone
• The 58-year-old, of Ramsgate, denied all the 14 charges, claiming they were lies
• He was convicted of several charges including rape at Canterbury Crown Court

By Alexander Robertson For Mailonline

New figures from the Department for Education disclosed for the first time that the authorities lost track of one in 10 children in care in 2017, with some going missing more over a month.

A 10 point reform plan ,easy to read and to implement that would stop most injustices

1:- No children should taken into state care by social workers via family courts for risk of future harm .(No punishment without crime)

2:-Family courts required to employ criminal court standards of proof. (innocent unless guilty beyond reasonable doubt) before branding parents as child abusers

3:- Free speech restored to parents allowing them the democratic right to protest publicly in the media and elsewhere revealing names when their children are taken;

4:-Free speech must be restored to children in care and parents at contact allowing discussion of anything they choose in any language they like.

5:- Social workers should be there to support families and never allowed to appear against them in court.Police should deal with all child cases of cruelty or neglect

6:- Forced-adoption (opposed by parents in court) should be banned and made a crime against humanity.

7:-All parents appearing in family courts should be encouraged to speak in person and to call their children ,relatives,friends ,and other professionals as witnesses.

8:-Parents who have not been convicted of any serious offence against children should never be forbidden contact with their children by phone,text,or email.

9:-When social workers and guardians insist in court that children “do not wish to see” one or both parents the parents should be allowed at least one supervised contact at which the attitude of the children could verify their desire to see or not to see such parents.

10:-In family court proceedings parents should have the right to call their children over the age of ten as witnesses and should also be allowed to call their own experts to testify as to their mental state whenever they are accused of suffering from mental health problems.Similarly parents accused of inflicting non accidental injuries on their children should be able to instruct their own experts as witnesses

Could we go even further?? Well,yes we could………….! !

We should abolish social workers and the family courts. and replace them by police to deal with child cruelty and criminal courts where you are innocent until proved guilty !That is how it used to be…….Family court judges in secret courts not open to the public, frequently brand parents as abusers or potential abusers “more likely than not “(the civil standard of proof) instead of beyond reasonable doubt.Guilty unless they can prove innocence !Family courts should either be replaced by criminal courts or at the very least be required to employ criminal standards of proof .

RISK ASSESSMENTS should be banned ! Children should never be taken into State care on the basis of crystal ball predictions of future harm .After all police will quite rightly arrest you if you commit a crime but will never do so if they believe you might commit a crime next year !
Babies are snatched at birth by social workers alleging risk of future harm. Their actions are rubberstamped by judges who act like racing tipsters ! They say past behaviour indicates likely future results ,a horse that won last week is going to win this week and alas it comes last !
Children should never be removed because self appointed social worker prophets claim in effect supernatural powers ;Children should of course be removed if serious crimes are committed against them. Children who are brutally battered like Baby P,and Maria Colwell should be removed at once, but they were unlikely candidates for adoption so they were left to die

We must STOP these bullies snatching thousands of children at birth for “risk of emotional abuse”(predictions of future disasters that probably will never happen:) and STOP the family court judges giving away every year thousands of these babies  to strangers for “forced adoption”; We must stop the snatching of kids from  law abiding parents;Why do we have laws if we punish those who keep the law?There should be“.No punishment without crime !”

WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN ?

Parents who’ve lost kids in shadowy secret courts slam ruthless millionaires cashing in on UK’s fostering crisis

The Court of Protection treats old people and young adults said to “lack capacity” even worse than the family courts treat children

CITY COUNCIL PIMP OUT A WOMAN IN THEIR CARE !!

Autistic woman, 23, whose condition meant she sought risky sex was allowed to be ‘pimped out’ to strangers by carers so she could ‘learn from her mistakes’
•Woman looked after by Manchester City Council-employed firm Engage Support
•She repeatedly engaged in risky sexual behaviour while in the company’s care
•Led to a two-month scheme in which men were allowed to visit her home for sex

By Rory Tingle For Mailonline

An autistic woman whose condition meant she sought risky sex was allowed to be ‘pimped out’ to strangers by carers so she could ‘learn from her mistakes’, according to a report.

The 23-year-old, who has learning difficulties, went through a two-month trial approved by a court during which random men would visit her Manchester care home for sex during daylight hours.

•
• Contact Preferences
TOP

Sign in
UK Edition
• Scottish Sun
• Irish Sun
• Sun Bingo
• Dream Team
• Health News
CARE SCANDAL
Autistic woman, 23, had sex in public with numerous men after being ‘pimped out by CARERS’
Carers with a private firm turned a blind eye as a vulnerable woman with an IQ of 52 had sex with up to three men a day, according to shocking claims
• Neal Baker
• 18 Oct 2018, 0:52
• Updated: 18 Oct 2018, 0:53
A SEVERELY autistic woman was “pimped out” by her carers who believed she needed to “learn from her mistakes”, according to shock claims that emerged tonight.
The 23-year-old has an IQ of 52 — but random men were reportedly still permitted to have sex with her at a care home in Manchester.

3
The woman slept with three men in one night after carers turned a blind eye to men approaching her for sex, according to shocking claimsCredit: Getty – Contributor
She is also said to have had sex in public several times – including behind a bowling alley – after being taken out on “dates” to shisha bars after the care company paid to look after her refused to intervene.
Staff were taking part in a court-approved trial this summer that allowed her to be visited by strangers between 10am and 4pm each day, The Times reported.
It was hoped that the scheme — run by private firm Engage Support — would encourage her to refrain from risky sexual behaviour, according to court documents.

•  
• 94-year-old spinster wants to live in her own home against the advice of social workers
• Council say couple she lives with are ‘controlling her life’
  
• Has been banned from speaking to the press about her plight
  
• Gagging order was made by secretive Court of Protection
  

By SUE REID FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY

PUBLISHED: 01:40 BST, 3 May 2014 | UPDATED: 15:03 BST, 3 May 2014

A frail 94-year-old spinster fighting council social workers for the right to live in her own home without their interference has been banned from talking publicly about her plight.

Is this what they mean by the “Court of Protection” ???????

THE GUARDIAN

The daughter of an Italian woman who had a forced caesarean section while in the UK has been adopted by “good and loving people”, the country’s top family judge has announced.

The case, which first unfolded in secrecy, was later reported and commented on around the world and led to Sir James Munby, president of the family division of the high court, calling for “radical changes” and greater transparency in the family courts.

Jailed for waving at my daughter

Source: UK Daily Mail – By JENNY JOHNSTON and RACHEL HALLIWELL – Add your comment | Comments (21) – 26th June 2007

Denied access to his three children after his divorce, Mark was jailed for standing outside his house to wave to them. It took ten years and 133 hearings before they were reunited. How CAN the Government insist cases like his are kept secret?

Every day there is some reminder of what Mark Harris calls ‘the lost years’. It could be his daughter’s reference to a particular birthday party or a family holiday. It could be talk of exams sat, dentists visited or pop stars worshipped.

Each time it happens, he feels a stab of regret. ‘I missed so much,’ he reveals, with understandable bitterness. ‘They took my daughter’s childhood, her formative years, from me. Lisa is 20 now. I didn’t see her between the ages of ten and 16. An awful lot happens in a child’s life in that time, and I missed it all.’

Reunited: Lisa, 20, with her father, Mark Harris

 

The mothers jailed after waving to their children in the street

It’s a mystery why judges and social workers think they have the legal authority to act in such an inhuman way

The “SS” ( 12/10/2018  Barnsley Chronicle)  Judge Moore compared Social Services to the Nazi “SS” ! 

He said “Social services were like the SS of Nazi Germany. They’re literally the SS in their name, and their manner of working is somewhat draconian.”

WHAT OTHER JUDGES SAY :-

1. 1: Lord Justice Thorpe said There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.

2. 2: Lord Justice Wall (the former Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.

3. 3: In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West

4. The podcast and transcript from the Debate that was held on 24 November is now on the Family Justice Council website. Please see the link below.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/advisory-bodies/fjc/conference-debates/debates/family-justice-council-9th-annual-debate/

Social workers will tell you that taking a baby at birth from a sane law abiding mother and giving it away to strangers is NOT a punishment as it is child protection and a good deed ! No mothers treated in this way would agree with that ! Sir James Munby  himself (when he was President of the family courts ) described the taking of a baby at birth from its mother as the worst possible thing that could happen to a mother since the abolition of capital punishment !

 

Cash prize for council that hit adoption targets

(Once children are adopted the government no longer has to pay exhorbitant fostering fees !)

Even social workers no longer deny the cruelty in depriving contact FOR LIFE between mothers and their babies or young  children.

5% of ALL the families in England and Wales have been investigated by Social Services for suspected child abuse !! (see below)

Maggie Mellon, British Association of Social workers; Ex-Vice Chair says:-
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/19/parents
“I believe that suspicion of parents and of families has become corrosive, and is distorting the values of our profession.
For the last 20 plus years the number of investigations or assessments into families suspected of child abuse has climbed steadily upwards and now accounts for one in 20 families in England and Wales !!!
A recent analysis found that since the Children Act 1989 referrals have increased by 311%, from 160,000 per year to 657,800 per year, between 1991 and 2014.
Assessments have increased by 302% over the same period, from 120,000 to 483,800, while the number of cases of ‘core abuse’ have fallen. The figures show that the ratio of referrals to registrations have fallen year on year from 24.1% to 7.3%.
Child protection dominates work
These assessments will have been carried out mainly by social workers. For social workers in statutory children and family teams there is no doubt that ‘child protection’ dominates every aspect of their work. Despite there being no significant rise in the number of children who die as a result of parental abuse or neglect, risk of abuse is assumed to be high.
What does this say about how social workers view parents and families? And, just as importantly, what must it tell us about how parents view contact with social services? I believe that the evidence is mounting of mutual distrust and fear
“The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent. That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that ….”

IMPORTANT

HOW A LAW TO PROTECT FAMILIES FROM THE STATE WAS TWISTED BY JUDGES TO PROTECT THE STATE FROM PROTESTING FAMILIES

Human Rights Act  Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

BUT.……………………..

This ARTICLE 8 was clearly drafted to protect families from interference by the State. Unfortunately our UK family court judges have totally distorted the above to mean that if  parents protest publicly when their babies or young children are snatched from them then they are breaching the “privacy” of these children and must go to jail !

In this way the ELIMINATION of your democratic right to protest when your kids are taken is one of the worst examples of “free speech” suppressed in our so called democratic UK !

NOW READ THE INTRODUCTION PAGE OF http://www.forced -adoption.com

And then ……..

 

Telephone

Please give

me a contact number

We usually need to talk by phone. Emails alone cannot answer the questions I need to ask !I do not need or want a long explanation just the FACTS as they are today NOT how or why they came about !Do tell me at least the basic information

1:-How many children do you have and how old are they?

2:- Are they living with you,with your ex Partner,with relatives,in fostercare,or placed for adoption?

3 :-Are your children under a section 20,an interim care order, an adoption placement or has there been a final adoption order? When exactly were any of these orders made?

4:-What reasons did the JUDGE (not the ss) give for (a) removing them from your care.(b)(if applicable) deciding that the last and only resort possible was adoption?(c)(if applicable)Stopping or severely restricting your contact?

5:-Have you, or your Partner, or the father/mother of your children got 1) a criminal record and do you have problems with 2)drugs or 3) alcohol?(Don’t worry even if you have all three as I will still advise you and help you .)

6:-Have you or your Partner been involved in incidents of domestic violence with each other or with previous partners?

7:-Have you or your Partner ever been diagnosed with mental problems or Learning difficulties and if so by whom and when?

8:- What is your objective now? What are you doing to achieve it and how do you think  I can best help you do that?

Short one or two line answers please ! Not a complete life story !

I REPEAT ! ALWAYS  ALWAYS add your PHONE NUMBER to every email you send me at ian@monaco.mc . I never note phone numbers because there are hundreds of them and the names cease to remind me of the facts of the cases.

PLEASE WATCH THESE FABULOUS VIDEOS !! http://www.forced-adoption.com

1. Watch the BBC film   ‘Families flee UK to avoid forced adoption’. Inside Out was broadcast on BBC One South East on Monday, 6 October 2014. Rachel Royce reports.!

   Here’s the link ! JUST CLICK AND WATCH !: https://forced-adoption.com/#insideout.

2. Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1N9r2Vieg  A mother screams in agony as her newborn baby is ripped from her arms……….

3. See the programme below on Channel 4 News

   http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

4. Ian Josephs speaking at the ‘Children Screaming to be Heard’ conference, London April 2016   https://youtu.be/d8sukVI0UMM

5. https://libertytactics.co.uk/ian-josephs-social-services-secret-courts-and-forced-adoption/

Contact IAN:-  MORE DETAILS !

 Leave me  a contact phone number!Please Let me know (morning,afternoon or evening) when you can receive a call from me .Try to leave your phone switched on as it annoying for me when I keep getting voicemail when I ring you !!Usually I will get back to you within 24 hours but remember I live in Monaco so if you receive a call from me from Monaco or France please do not block it !

BEWARE if anyone approaches you to “help” and then asks for money .Give them NOTHING ,they are probably scammers !

A man claiming to be a trainee barrister who conned mothers into parting with thousands of pounds for legal advice will go on trial next year.

Tyrone Raymond William Wright was previously jailed for 6 months in 2020 for pretending to be a barrister while advising a mother who was trying to regain custody of her children. The mother gave Wright £1,400 to represent her at the hearing.

The case was thrown out and the mother’s application was dismissed as a result of Wright’s conduct. The children were then forcibly adopted.

Naturally ,I will pay for the call. I will NEVER NEVER ask you for any money!Try if possible to email me (no texts or Facebook entries as I have no time to check these daily) Monday – Friday 9am-5pm avoiding Sunday so that you get a quick reply from me and my wife has time to chat with me ALWAYS  ALWAYS add your  phone number to every email you send  me  at ianjosephs1601@gmail.com

I no longer reveal my phone number on line because when I did I got so many calls I  could not work properly in the day and could not sleep properly at night (much to my wife’s annoyance !) I never note phone numbers because there are hundreds of them and the names cease to remind me of the facts of the cases.Also note I DO NOT DOWNLOAD ATTACHMENTS AS THEY OFTEN CONTAIN A VIRUS.Please Scan documents and send them by email if you want me to read them !

 Please use regular email to scan and send vital court papers or letters (no attachments please as they often contain viruses!))Remember again to send me essential facts:- How many children are involved,,how old they are,your relationship to them,who they are living with and MOST IMPORTANT  your objective=,What you want me to help you achieve;A long life story with even longer explanations is Not necessary and usually is NOT helpful !

I got into helping parents in the sixties when I was elected to Kent County Council and found myself making numerous court appearances helping bereft parents and opposing my own Council in family court proceedings (I NEVER LOST A CASE). Eventually it all became too much  for me to manage and I stopped appearing in court for parents because I had to save my neglected language school which needed my urgent personal attention;

Nearly 40 years later the situation was different;By 2003  I had established very successful language businesses in France and at that time there was a scandal concerning Professor Meadows wrongly accusing mothers of murdering children who had died of cot deaths. I wrote a letter published in the Daily Mail  saying things were worse now for parents than when I was involved in the sixties;

As a result I received around 50 letters from parents outraged because their children had been taken so I “got back into business” I invented the term “forced adoption” to describe “adoption without parental consent” I then created a website, http://www.forced-adoption.com to help distressed parents. I have since then helped thousands (yes thousands!) of parents who have had their children taken by the “SS” especially when their children have been given away to strangers for forced adoption !Unfortunately the law changed in 1989 and I can no longer represent parents in court as although I have a law degree I am not a solicitor or barrister.

What do I actually do now? Well I advise 3 or 4 distraught parents every day of my life when they contact me by email or telephone.I try to help them keep their children when threatened by Social Services (the SS) or recover them if already taken.I also finance the departure from the UK of around 6 pregnant mums per year as the ONLY way to stop their babies being taken away at birth for adoption by strangers.

Social Workers react in horror saying “He does not even make a “risk assessment” so how does he know he is not financing the wrong people to escape?My answer is very simple .RISK ASSESSMENTS SHOULD BE BANNED

NO pregnant woman deserves to have her baby snatched at birth on the basis of guesswork put forward by social workers who claim they can  predict the future !

No baby deserves to lose its mother as soon as it is born !!If a pregnant woman  is so desperate to keep her baby when it is born that she will leave the UK and all that is familiar to her, to find a more civilised country that does not snatch thousands of babies every year as soon as they are born;  then she and the baby deserve at least a chance to be together even if some supervision is necessary.

Well over 1000 cases a year come to me ,and in the biased family courts a success rate of only about 20% ! Even that is a lot better than the less than 1% achieved by solicitors and barristers who mostly gag their clients to stop them speaking in court and then agree with everything the social workers ask for ! Only one in four hundred applications for a care order is refused(official judicial statistics) so what chance do the parents get when represented by treacherous lawyers in our family courts who get a lot of work from the local authorities and work with them in nearly every case and very rarely against them !

Most family court lawyers are professional losers !!

JUDICIAL COURT STATISTICS (page 26)

In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.

Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?

Judicial and Court statistics 2011 – Gov.uk     No more recent statistics have been published !

Lord Justice Thorpe said” There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.”

I never never ask anyone for money. I was awarded  a law degree M.A Hons (Jurisprudence)from Oxford University but eventually went into business not law; .Social workers and family courts have never bothered me or my family but I still hate injustice and especially forced adoption! (I actually invented this phrase around 2003!).I also run two educational  companies so if you want to check up on me before contacting me just click  http://www.regencyschool.com   and http://www.hli.co.uk and then watch the three videos above made by BBC,ITV,and Channel 4 in which I feature.

 

WHY DO I DO THIS?

A journalist recently asked me this question and I THINK IT WAS A FAIR QUESTION THAT DESERVES A REPLY !

1:-I believe so strongly in the link between new born baby and mother that I DETEST those who authorise the snatching of babies at birth from sane law abiding mothers.

2:- I dislike those who pretend to predict the future(Crystal ball needed ?) and who then remove babies and young children on the pretext that there are risks of future emotional abuse (which may never happen!)

Social workers backed by the Family courts continually  reject grandparents as alternative carers for trivial reasons such as their believing in the parent’s innocence making them a “future risk” !This despite the Children  Act 1979 clearly stating that children who cannot live with parents MUST be placed with relatives or close friends of parents.

3:-I dislike social workers and their allies who pretend to have authority and then bluff  intimidated parents into following their orders. In the UK only police and judges have general authority.

4:-I believe strongly in absolute FREE SPEECH that does not incite violence or endanger the security of the State .(Libel and slanders laws protect us sufficiently against the malicious).

(a):-FREE SPEECH should apply particularly to parents whose children have been taken by the court and who wish to protest publicly and not anonymously without being jailed.

(b):-FREE SPEECH should also apply to children and parents at “contact” who should be able to discuss anything they want (including abuse suffered in care) and (if foreign) in any language they want  without contact being stopped (often for good)

Both examples where free speech is needed are at present strictly ( and wrongly) forbidden .

5:-I believe the important precept that I was taught at law school in Oxford  University . “Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done !”

6:- I detest those who make orders forbidding all contact (even by phone ,email or birthday card) between children and parents who have never been convicted in court of harming them yet risk being jailed for up to 3 years for saying hello at an accidental meeting !(As in the case of Vicky Hague raised in Parliament)

7:-I detest courts that dare to brand a parent as a child abuser because a judge believes it to be “more likely than not” ( 51% ) instead of “beyond reasonable doubt” that he or she “did the deed” thus reversing the principle “innocent until proved guilty to “Guilty unless proved innocent” !

8:-I believe it is wicked that fostering and adoption agencies should make million of £s  out of the misery of others! (See my site http://www.forced-adoption.com).They brazenly publish these figures every year for all the world to see but nobody seems to  care……

9:-I detest it when guardians and social workers report to the family courts that children “in care” no longer wish to see or have contact with their parents yet refuse to allow those children to be called into the court by parents to verify this.The United Nations Convention on children’s rights clearly states that children ‘s voices should be heard in judicial proceedings that concern them;

10:- Lastly and perhaps the most immediately important . All Adoptions in the UK should be voluntary and “Open” so that parents have the right to know where and to whom their children are going .NO MORE FORCED ADOPTION and NO MORE SECRECY !

Historically there have always been those willing to devote their lives fighting for causes such as the abolition of slavery,the freedom to practice the religion or belief of choice ,Universal suffrage,votes for women, and lately anti discrimination against those of different coloured skin or religion.

I don’t (I hope) overate or over value myself as I do NOT devote my whole life to the cause I support so strongly.I run two international  language businesses and care as much as I can at age 87 (born 1932) for 7 children and 14 grandchildren.Nevertheless I strongly believe in the “The cause”  and will do all I can in a small way to bring about the necessary reforms !Social Workers and Family Courts infringe all the above 10 points so I  say PLEASE………..

“ABOLISH SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE FAMILY COURTS AND REPLACE THEM BY POLICE AND CRIMINAL COURTS TO DEAL WITH CHILD CRUELTY SO THAT THERE WOULD IN FUTURE BE “NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME”

 12/10/2018   Judge Moore compared Social Services to the Nazi “SS” !Barnsley Chronicle 

A JUDGE likened Barnsley social services to the Nazi Party’s SS after a young girl who had expressed suicidal thoughts was subjected to a naked medical examination without her father’s consent.
“Social services were like the SS of Nazi Germany,” Judge Moore said. “They’re literally the SS in their name and their manner of working is somewhat draconian.

Yes Social Workers are “Bad News” for any child…………..

In a press release issued by the Department for Education on 17th June, Damian Hinds, the Education Secretary said:

“Overall if you’ve needed contact with a social worker at any time since year 5, on average you are going to score 20 grades lower across eight GCSEs… We need to improve the visibility of this group, both in schools and in the system as a whole.”

 

 Children in care are being ‘sucked into the criminal justice system for trivial reasons’, Lord Laming told the Times.

Telephone

I repeat again the questions I put and the answers I need in case you ignored them earlier or skipped over them !

We usually need to talk by phone (so please make sure you always give me your number each time you contact me) . Emails alone cannot answer the questions I need to ask !I do not need or want a long explanation just the FACTS as they are today NOT how or why they came about !Do tell me at least the basic information

1:-How many children do you have and how old are they?

2:- Are they living with you,with your ex Partner,with relatives,in fostercare,or placed for adoption?

3 :-Are your children under a section 20,an interim care order, an adoption placement or has there been a final adoption order? When exactly were any of these orders made?

4:-What reasons did the JUDGE (not the ss) give for (a) removing them from your care.(b)(if applicable) deciding that the last and only resort possible was adoption?(c)(if applicable)Stopping or severely restricting your contact?

5:-Have you, or your Partner, or the father/mother of your children got 1) a criminal record and do you have problems with 2)drugs or 3) alcohol?(Don’t worry even if you have all three as I will still advise you and help you .)

6:-Have you or your Partner been involved in incidents of domestic violence with each other or with previous partners?

7:-Have you or your Partner ever been diagnosed with mental problems or Learning difficulties and if so by whom and when?

8:- What is your objective now? What are you doing to achieve it and how do you think  I can best help you do that?

 

Short one or two line answers please ! Not a complete life story !

I REPEAT ! ALWAYS  ALWAYS add your PHONE NUMBER to every email you send me at ian@monaco.mc . I never note phone numbers because there are hundreds of them and the names cease to remind me of the facts of the cases.ALSO do look at my site http://www.forced-adoption.com

 Please use regular email to scan and send vital court papers or letters (no attachments please as they often contain viruses!))Remember again to send me essential facts:- How many children are involved,,how old they are,your relationship to them,who they are living with and MOST IMPORTANT  your objective=,What you want me to help you achieve;A long life story with even longer explanations is Not necessary and usually is NOT helpful !

CAN YOU TELL OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN BEING SNATCHED??

Do not be bluffed by social workers or even your own useless solicitors! If they say that 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 !!

You can access the actual texts of the new rules as passed by parliament as follows;-

Statutory Instruments

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/pd_part_12g

See also Section 62: Publication of material relating to legal proceedings

The Children Act 2004 para 251.     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 .

Clayton v Clayton:-  “Once proceedings are 100% completed publish names and détails as you like !”

Extract from the judgement

77. The practical consequence which flows from this judgment is that henceforth it will be appropriate for every tribunal, when making what it believes to be a final order in proceedings under the 1989 Act, to consider whether or not there is an outstanding welfare issue which needs to be addressed by a continuing order for anonymity. This will, I think, be a useful discipline for parties, judges, and family practitioners alike. If there is no outstanding welfare issue, then it is likely that the penal consequences of s.97 of the 1989 Act will cease to have any effect, and the parties will be able to put into the public domain any matter relating to themselves and their children which they wish to publish, provided that the publication does not offend against s.12 AJA 1960.

Abusive parents rarely go to court to fight for the return of their children

Surely you may say there are abusive parents so why take their side? The answer is two fold :- Firstly most abusive parents do not go to court and fight to get their children back They stay well away from courts and judges !.Secondly I am not a judge ,I just help and advise any parent who asks me in the same way as a criminal lawyer will defend clients without judging whether they are guilty or innocent.

GENERAL ADVICE FOR PARENTS IF THE”SS” THREATEN TO SNATCH YOUR CHILDREN OR HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THEM

This is just a “TEMPLATE STATEMENT” TO BE CORRECTED AND ADJUSTED BY THE PARENT TO SUIT YOUR PARTICULAR CASE

 READ IT ALOUD TO THE COURT ! It is not enough to send it to the court or add it to a bundle .The judge will probably not bother to read it if you do !

Remember Judge Scarrat who admitted in court” I have finished my five applications and given judgment so , I’m now free to deal this but you’ve really got limited time because I have to be at a meeting at 4 o’clock. I’ve got bundles here, I’ve not looked at them –

Alternatively KINSHIP CARE gives the excellent solution that a child or children should be placed with relatives

.If you have no relatives or close friends to care for your children delete this section and proceed direct to the statement

Social Services have a legal obligation to place children with relatives where possible if they have removed them from parents.It is the responsibility of the local authorities to make enquiries to see if relatives are available to receive such children.

The Children Act 1989 clearly states in the following extract:-

(4) A person falls within this subsection if he is (a) a parent of the child;(b) a person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for him; or(c) where the child is in care and there was a residence order in force with respect to him immediately before the care order was made, a person in whose favour the residence order was made.

(5) Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the authority may only allow him to live with a person who falls within subsection (4) in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) Subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection, any local authority looking after a child shall make arrangements to enable him to live with”

(a) a person falling within subsection (4); or

(b) a relative, friend or other person connected with him,

STATEMENT

 Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B:

There is no good reason why my children should not be returned to me  under a supervision order and I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT TO ORDER THIS ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

1:-I have never neglected or abused my children

2-I have no criminal record,and I have never been charged with a serious crime.

3:-I have no problems with alcohol

4:-I have no problems with drugs.

5:-I have no mental problems, or learning difficulties.Any so called risks from allegations that I do have such problems or difficulties are minmal compared with the far greater risk of putting children into State care where nearly half end up in prison or as prostitutes.

6:-I have never been involved in incidents of domestic violence .

7:-. I am single and will devote myself 24/7 to the care of my children if allowed to do so

8:-My children have always been happy, well dressed,clean,never underweight, always healthy, with  excellent attendance and work records at their schools when in my care..

9:-My accommodation is very suitable and has always been kept clean and tidy.

10:-My children have been cruelly abused by the removal from my loving care.Contrary to section 8 (human rights act) that gives us all the right to a private family life undisturbed by public authority.

11:My rights under Article 6(human rights act) have been breached by my own solicitor denying me the opportunity in determination of my CIVIL RIGHTS to speak in court in person to state my case , to call witnesses on my behalf and to cross examine witnesses called to testify against me.

12:- The UN Convention on children’s rights give children the right to participate in proceedings that concern them.Many distinguished judges including Sir James Munby have emphasised that children’s voices must be heard in person and not through third parties;yet I have been refused permission to call my son as my chief witnesses to prove that I have never harmed my children ,never neglected them,and that they  want to come home with me as soon as possible because they are very unhappy where they are in care.

I also respectfully remind the court of the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions) [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

“Many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or ‘model’ them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.”

Note also the observation of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC (para 143):

“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.”

In the matter of A (A Child) v Darlington Borough Council and (1) M (2) F (3) GM and GF and (4) A (by his children’s guardian) [2015] EWFC 11 (“Re A”) – read judgment

In a scathing judgment, the president of the Family Division has condemned as “social engineering” a local authority’s application to remove a baby boy permanently from the care of his father and place him for adoption.

The case was, he said,

an object lesson in, almost textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.

In addressing these failings, Munby P identified “three fundamentally important points”.

The first point, vital for practitioners on the ground, is that findings of fact must be based on evidence, not suspicion and speculation. As the judge observed, material in local authority files is often second or third-hand hearsay. Although hearsay is admissible in care proceedings, if challenged, a local authority will have to establish its accuracy.

In this case, the original social worker’s “concerns” about the father were repeated and adopted by other practitioners (including the children’s guardian), without further enquiry. When the case reached court, that enquiry revealed what Sir James described witheringly as

a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations.

Stripped of suspicion, speculation and hyperbole, the majority of the factual case collapsed and was reduced to familiar assertions that the parent “lacks honesty with professionals” or “minimises matters of importance”.

The second fundamental point is that a successful application for a care order must link the facts relied on to the threshold test, i.e., why do the facts asserted lead to the conclusion that the child is at risk of suffering significant harm?

In this case, the local authority thus had to show how the fact that the father had had sex with an underage girl of 13 when he was aged 17, affected his ability to care for his baby son some six years later. How did the social worker’s complaint that he “failed to acknowledge the immoral nature of the offences committed” support the assessment that his child was at risk of neglect?

The judge was equally unimpressed by the local authority’s “concern” about the father’s involvement with the English Defence League (EDL) – referred to in the social worker’s assessment as “a barbaric protestor group”. The fact (“if fact it be”) that the father was a member of the EDL (“probably only for a short time”) was, he said,

neither here nor there, whatever one may think of its beliefs or policies.

The social worker’s repeated reference to the “immoral aspects of the father’s behaviour”, prompted the judge’s third fundamental point that, in the “wise and powerful words” of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent…some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.

In the same vein, as Baroness Hale explained in the celebrated Supreme Court decision In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33:

We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the state does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical and mental illnesses or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.

In this case, local authority concerns also included an alleged “history of drug abuse”. Once probed, the evidence established the father “may have taken cannabis on occasions”. However Sir James observed,

the reality is that many parents smoke cannabis on occasions without their children coming to harm… [P]arental abuse of alcohol or drugs of itself and without more is no basis for taking children into care.

On the positive side, the father was recognised to love the child, to be capable of meeting his day-to-day needs and to have shown commitment in supervised contact. Taking account of the “greatly weakened” local authority case and “surveying the wide canvass”, the judge concluded

The judge says “I can accept that the father may not be the best of parents, he may be less than a suitable role model, but that is not enough to justify a care order, let alone adoption.”

para 86

 

The President also agreed with the somewhat controversial remarks of His Honour Judge Jack in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCC B77 (Fam) (emphasis added):

“…The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should, I am not condoning that for a moment, but the courts are not in the business of social engineering. The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the courts.

1:-Ignore social workers!They make their living snatching children so they are your enemies.They have NO AUTHORITY  so you should NEVER OBEY THEM  Never SIGN anything they give you ,Never go to their meetings,never let them in your house unless police are present, Say ” I am really very sorry but I have been advised not to speak to you until my children’s future has been definitely settled by the court .

I repeat IGNORE UK SOCIAL WORKERS!! They act like police but in fact they have NO AUTHORITY (they rely on bluff, bullying and fear)  .In the UK only police and judges have the authority to give you orders but social workers have no power  at all except to frighten you!!Don’t talk to them  (The very first time they question you or lecture you ,Just say VERY QUIETLY AND POLITELY ” I am really very sorry but I have been advised NOT to chat with you !).

Witnesses
If you have relatives or friends who volunteer to care for your child
Warn the court in advance(at the resolutions hearing if possible) that you will call them as witnesses (name them explaining roughly what each one will say) and remind the court that the Children Act obliges the local authority to place children who cannot live with parents with relatives or close friends of parents.Your 14 year old son or daughter would be a particularly good witness to say for example what a good mum you are and how there was never any domestic violence,drunkeness or drugtaking, etc in your house !

IMPORTANT

IF A JUDGE ASKS YOU WHY YOU DID NOT ENGAGE WITH OR WORK WITH SOCIAL WORKERS ANSWER LIKE THIS:-

“These social  workers kept on laughing at me and telling me they were going to take away my baby (or children) and there was nothing at all I could do about it .No mother who loves her baby (or children) could work for long with people like that.”

Also please do not write letters to the judge or the court to explain your case .You should send the court your statement,your evidence ,and the names of your witnesses but not in the form of a personal letter asking for individual  attention !

2;-Tell your children at home or at school to say to strangers and especially social workers”My mummy (or daddy) has told me not to speak to you unless she is there too !Alternatively you can give permission to the social worker to speak to your child alone if you are next door listening to the questions and recording them so that you know that any written account of any interview is correct !

3:-

Most family court lawyers are professional losers !!

Family court lawyers mostly  work with social services.

They then agree to care orders and anything else the social workers want and you will lose your child!If you do not hire a lawyer you will automatically represent yourself and can prepare a statement in advance(I can help you with this) that you can read out loud to the judge !You do NOT need a solicitor or barrister who will just surrender to the “SS

IMPORTANT ! If a judge tries to persuade you to hire a solicitor or barrister and asks you why you refuse to do so answer him as follows………..

“My solicitor gags me and wants to speak for me ,telling me not to fight and to agree to everything the local authority demand !I do not need a solicitor to run up a white flag and surrender.I want to fight for my child(ren) and inform the court exactly why my child needs his/her mother (or father) and why my child would be better off with me than with complete strangers who might be abusers or paedophiles !

Adapt this answer to fit your case if it does not do so already

I say again “BEWARE ,BEWARE ,BEWARE !!”

HOW DO YOU TELL WHO THEY ARE????It really is very very easy !!!These treacherous scoundrels gag their own clients and tell them to “work with social services” !(the very same people who make their living taking children and who perhaps took your’s) Yes they stop parents defending themselves and then agree with everything the “SS” demand !Sack on the spot,any lawyer that tries to gag you by not calling you to speak in court.

Sometimes vour solictor or barrister will try to control you by telling you the following things:-1:- You cannot speak in court 2:- You cannot call witnesses 3:- You cannot talk about your case with other people and 4:- You cannot appeal.ALL THESE THINGS ARE LIES !!

Yes there are a very few “honest lawyers” ;How do you tell who they are? Well, if they promise you to fight the social services every step of the way to keep your children or to get them back and also if they promise to let you speak so that you can make all the points you like (not just let you answer questions!) then you might have hit on a good’un !

Also BEWARE of friends and other non lawyers who offer to advise you but demand money for their services.They are probably scammers!Anyone capable of giving you legal advice should NOT need to take money from desperate parents though repaying reasonable expenses such as travel is acceptable.If their advice is Worth listening to they should have made enough for themselves so as not to need any from you !

 I repeat again “If your lawyers gag you  SACK THEM ON THE SPOT IN COURT and represent yourself so you can at least defend yourself against the false allegations that are sure to be made against you.”If you do not deny what the “SS” say about you the judge will assume that everything they say about you is true !NEVER be gagged!Deny false allegations.

NO SPECIAL FORM NEEDED  to sack them !:-WRITE ON PLAIN PAPER BUT PUT IN YOUR CASE NUMBER

Just,write the following sentence” In case number …………I no longer wish a solicitor or barrister to act for me as I now wish to represent myself.

Signed…… Date……

Case number……

Send this recorded delivery to the court (the court clerk) ,to your solicitor,and to the local authority legal dept.(address should be the town hall,municipal buildings or wherever the Council meet but phone the Council to make sure)

They will tell you that you need “bundles” .Forget it ! Judges rarely read them !

Here is one judge actually admitting that he has not read the bundles yet he still turned down the appeal !Make sure you convince the judge that you are the best mum (or dad) that your child could wish for.Represent yourself otherwise your bent solicitor or barrister will stop you speaking in court (effectively gagging you) and then they will agree to everything the local authority have asked for !

A v R & Anor 2018

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/521.html

See para 28 from the above judgement !

BASIC ADVICE FOR ALL PARENTS WHEN THEIR CHILDREN ARE TAKEN BY SOCIAL SERVICES

 

1)Never obey social workers or believe anything they say as they have no authority.Only police and judges(in court) can tell you what to do and get you arrested if you refuse to do what they tell you .Reply to social workers who question you that you have been advised not to speak to them until court proceedings have finished;Never let them in your house unless police are present.

2)Never hire a family court solicitor or barrister ;Most are” professional losers “who work closely with social workers and who stop parents from speaking directly to the judge to present their evidence.Parents are therefore strongly advised to represent themselves so they can at least speak !

3)Never sign any document pushed onto you by a stranger ! Sign only  for things you need to rent,buy,or need to make your life better.If you have been bullied into signing a section 20 remember when your kids have gone  that you can demand the return of your children at any time .

4) Never lie to children especially if they have been snatched by Social Services Tell them right from the start that social workers are wicked people who steal children for money .Tell them to say they cannot answer questions from anyone they don’t know unless their mother or father are present.

5)You must be the nicest person in court to have any chance of winning !Never be tempted in court to attack social workers or “the system” or you will lose your case. Try instead to say social workers usually do a great job but in your case they made a terrible mistake that now needs putting right !

6)Usually  Your best defence in court is to say (if true) that none of your children have ever been seriously injured or seriously ill under your care ;Risks of future harm are guesswork .A police officer can arrest you if you commit a crime but not if he thinks you will commit one next year !

7) If possible you should say you have no criminal record ,no problems with drugs or alcohol ,no mental problems and no involvement with domestic violence; When one or more of these are not true try to show there is no danger from them now .Punishment without any actual crime is wrong

8)The law says “Adoption is a last resort when nothing else will do “ and also that when children cannot live with parents they should be placed with relatives if possible. Try to show that other remedies WILL DO like returning to a parent or relative or both combined !

WHAT TO SAY IN COURT:-

I keep repeating :-Beware of family court lawyers who gag their clients and give the children away to the “SS”.If you are a couple never take more than one solicitor or barrister so that the best speaker of the couple can automatically represent himself/herself without a treacherous lawyer !

Most family court lawyers are professional losers !!

 Yes there are a very few “honest lawyers” ;How do you tell who they are? Well,

1;- if they promise you to fight the social services every step of the way to keep your children or to get them back and also

2:-if they promise to let you speak so that you can make all the points you like (not just let you answer questions!) then you might have hit on a good’un

3:- if they allow you to call friends or relatives as character witnesses to say what they have seen re you and your children.

If the judge asks you why you have sacked your solicitor and/or barrister just explain that it is because “my lawyer wants me to give my children away without a fight and without letting me speak “

!If they refuse these simple requests SACK THEM AT ONCE (even on the day of the court!)

 

NO SPECIAL FORM NEEDED  to sack them !:-WRITE ON PLAIN PAPER BUT PUT IN YOUR CASE NUMBER

Just,write the following sentence” In case number …………I no longer wish a solicitor or barrister to act for me as I now wish to represent myself.

Signed…… Date……

Case number……

Send this recorded delivery to the court (the court clerk) ,to your solicitor,and to the local authority legal dept.(address should be the town hall,municipal buildings or wherever the Council meet but phone the Council to make sure)

Remember also NEVER obey a social worker or their assistants as they have NO AUTHORITY;Never let them in your home unless police are also present and never speak to them at all except to say “I am very sorry but I have been advised not to speak to you until all court proceedings are over and my children are safe home with me “

.If you have no relatives or close friends to care for your children delete this section and proceed direct to the statement

Social Services have a legal obligation to place children with relatives where possible if they have removed them from parents.It is the responsibility of the local authorities to make enquiries to see if relatives are available to receive such children.

The Children Act 1989 clearly states in the following extract:-

(4) A person falls within this subsection if he is (a) a parent of the child;(b) a person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for him; or(c) where the child is in care and there was a residence order in force with respect to him immediately before the care order was made, a person in whose favour the residence order was made.

(5) Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the authority may only allow him to live with a person who falls within subsection (4) in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) Subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection, any local authority looking after a child shall make arrangements to enable him to live with”

(a) a person falling within subsection (4); or

(b) a relative, friend or other person connected with him,

 

 

 

THIS IS ROUGHLY WHAT MOTHERS SHOULD SAY TO THE JUDGE (providing it is true !) I have no criminal record ,no problems with alcohol or drugs,no threats of domestic violence and no mental problems. My child should be allowed come back to live with me to receive the LOVE that only a mother can give.As a family that is our human right.

Remember when you go to court that your object is to WIN the case and get or keep your children back home with you! You can only do this if you can show the judge that the children will be safe from harm and will be loved if they are left with you !It is a waste of time and a bad mistake to attack social workers or “the other parent” in court.Even if you could prove that the Guardian was a child sex abuser and the social worker a serial killer they would both get replaced but you would not get your child back !

As for “the other parent” …… Be careful not to be accused of parental alienation and so losing your child! Always say how much you believe in shared parenting with yourself as primary carer and alternate weekends for the other parent. The only exception being if the other parent has been convicted of inflicting severe injury on a child or worse still been convicted of sexually abusing a child but in these cases social  usually and the judge certainly will  side with you.

Your best chance of winning is to be the nicest person in court .Never say anything bad about anyone in a family court as nearly always when you badmouth others it makes you sound bad yourself ! Say how sad it is that social workers and others have made a terrible mistake in your case and NOW is the time to put matters right !

 

This is just a “TEMPLATE STATEMENT TO BE CORRECTED AND ADJUSTED BY THE PARENT TO SUIT YOUR PARTICULAR CASE

 READ IT ALOUD TO THE COURT ! It is not enough to send it to the court or add it to a bundle .The judge will probably not bother to read it if you do !

Remember Judge Scarrat (above)who admitted in court” I have finished my five applications and given judgment so , I’m now free to deal this but you’ve really got limited time because I have to be at a meeting at 4 o’clock. I’ve got bundles here, I’ve not looked at them –

A v R & Anor 2018

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/521.html

See para 28 from the above judgement !

 

STATEMENT.

 Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B:

Lord Templeman in Re KD 1988:

The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature” 

There is no good reason why my children should not be returned to me  under a supervision order and I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT TO ORDER THIS ACCORDING TO THE LAW;

1:-I have never neglected or abused my children. While in my care none of my children have suffered significant harm needing hospital treatment nor have they ever been seriously ill needing a hospital visit;They have never been harmed while in my care so there can be no valid reason to keep them from loving parents now .They should come home to me at the earliest possible moment.

2:-I have no criminal record,and I have never been charged with a serious crime.

Why do we have laws if we treat those who keep them (parents etc) worse than those who break them (criminals etc)

3:-I have no problems with alcohol

4:-I have no problems with drugs.

5:-I have no mental problems, or learning difficulties. I present to the court a report from an independent expert to prove this.I also show by my conduct in court calmly and logically presenting my case that there is nothing wrong with me mentally or physically;

6:-I have never been involved in incidents of domestic violence or serious disturbing disputes with partners Like all couples we have had arguments and raised our voices but not in front of the children

7:-. I am single and will devote myself 24/7 to the care of my children if allowed to do so

8:-My children have always been happy, well dressed,clean,never underweight, always healthy, with  excellent attendance and work records at their schools when in my care..

9:-My accommodation is very suitable and has always been kept clean and tidy.

10:-My children have been cruelly abused by the removal from my loving care.Contrary to section 8 (human rights act) that gives us all the right to a private family life undisturbed by public authority.

11:My rights under Article 6(human rights act) have been breached by my own solicitor denying me the opportunity in determination of my CIVIL RIGHTS to speak in court in person to state my case , to call witnesses on my behalf and to cross examine witnesses called to testify against me.

12:- The UN Convention on children’s rights give children the right to participate in proceedings that concern them.Many distinguished judges including Sir James Munby have emphasised that children’s voices must be heard in person ;yet I have been refused permission to call my son as my chief witnesses to prove that I have never harmed my children ,never neglected them,and that they  want to come home with me as soon as possible because they are very unhappy where they are in care.

Note also the observation of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC (para 143):

“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.”

Please note also 3 important judgements from 3  different and  very senior judges all of which support my position as stated 

In the matter of A (A Child) v Darlington Borough Council and (1) M (2) F (3) GM and GF and (4) A (by his children’s guardian) [2015] EWFC 11 (“Re A”) – read judgment

In a scathing judgment, the president of the Family Division has condemned as “social engineering” a local authority’s application to remove a baby boy permanently from the care of his father and place him for adoption.

The case was, he said,

an object lesson in, almost textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.

In addressing these failings, Munby P identified “three fundamentally important points”.

The first point, vital for practitioners on the ground, is that findings of fact must be based on evidence, not suspicion and speculation. As the judge observed, material in local authority files is often second or third-hand hearsay. Although hearsay is admissible in care proceedings, if challenged, a local authority will have to establish its accuracy.

In this case, the original social worker’s “concerns” about the father were repeated and adopted by other practitioners (including the children’s guardian), without further enquiry. When the case reached court, that enquiry revealed what Sir James described witheringly as

a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations.

Stripped of suspicion, speculation and hyperbole, the majority of the factual case collapsed and was reduced to familiar assertions that the parent “lacks honesty with professionals” or “minimises matters of importance”.

The second fundamental point is that a successful application for a care order must link the facts relied on to the threshold test, i.e., why do the facts asserted lead to the conclusion that the child is at risk of suffering significant harm?

In this case, the local authority thus had to show how the fact that the father had had sex with an underage girl of 13 when he was aged 17, affected his ability to care for his baby son some six years later. How did the social worker’s complaint that he “failed to acknowledge the immoral nature of the offences committed” support the assessment that his child was at risk of neglect?

The judge was equally unimpressed by the local authority’s “concern” about the father’s involvement with the English Defence League (EDL) – referred to in the social worker’s assessment as “a barbaric protestor group”. The fact (“if fact it be”) that the father was a member of the EDL (“probably only for a short time”) was, he said,

neither here nor there, whatever one may think of its beliefs or policies.

The social worker’s repeated reference to the “immoral aspects of the father’s behaviour”, prompted the judge’s third fundamental point that, in the “wise and powerful words” of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent…some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.

In the same vein, as Baroness Hale explained in the celebrated Supreme Court decision In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33:

We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the state does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical and mental illnesses or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.

In this case, local authority concerns also included an alleged “history of drug abuse”. Once probed, the evidence established the father “may have taken cannabis on occasions”. However Sir James observed,

the reality is that many parents smoke cannabis on occasions without their children coming to harm… [P]arental abuse of alcohol or drugs of itself and without more is no basis for taking children into care.

On the positive side, the father was recognised to love the child, to be capable of meeting his day-to-day needs and to have shown commitment in supervised contact. Taking account of the “greatly weakened” local authority case and “surveying the wide canvass”, the judge concluded

The judge says “I can accept that the father may not be the best of parents, he may be less than a suitable role model, but that is not enough to justify a care order, let alone adoption.”

para 86

I also respectfully remind the court of the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions) [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

“Many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or ‘model’ them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.”

 

The President also agreed with the somewhat controversial remarks of His Honour Judge Jack in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCC B77 (Fam) (emphasis added):

“…The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should, I am not condoning that for a moment, but the courts are not in the business of social engineering. The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the courts.

MOST IMPORTANT

Always tell your children what is going on re horrible social workers !

Tell your son try and behave for a bit or at least until court is over as the social workers are looking for an excuse to make money by putting him into fostercare

Never lie to children even though the “SS” will tell you to hide the truth from them.If it does go to court call your children as witnesses  to say they want to stay with you and NOT go to fostercare to live with strangers who only do it for money !

If the judge asks you why you did not work well with social workers you explain that from the beginning they told you they would take your children and that there was nothing you could do about it .

You found it hard to work well with persons whose declared object was to remove your children and give them to strangers,

Remember when you go to court that your object is to WIN the case and get your children back home with you! You can only do this if you can show the judge that the children will be safe from harm and will be loved if they are left with you !It is a waste of time and a bad mistake to attack social workers in court.Even if you could prove that the Guardian was a child sex abuser and the social worker a serial killer they would both get replaced but you would not get your child back !

Your best chance of winning is to be the nicest person in court .Never say anything bad about anyone in a family court ! Say how sad it is that social workers and others have made a terrible mistake in your case and NOW is the time to put matters right !

KINSHIP CARE

If you have a parent or other close relative who is willing to take care of your child if you should lose in court it is important how they behave.They  must say they accept the decision of the court as to what “inadequate parents” these children have and promise that any visits while THEY are in charge are supervised ! Too many grand parents protest their children’s innocence and say what great parents they are with the result that they lose their case immediately for not accepting the “wise words” of social services and the court. Remember your main purpose is NOT to win a bad tempered argument ;it is to keep your child out of state care or adoption by any means that you can use.

Never admit any faults you may have because you are told “that will please the judge” .True it will but it will also lose you your child !Tell the truth when questioned but never volunteer information or explanations unless forced to do so by clever questioning even when you only answer “yes” or “no”.

You must concentrate on proving that you are a good parent and that all allegations against you are false if you want to win your kids back instead of losing them like most people do in the family courts; To do this try and establish that you and your spouse/partner(when applicable)  ,have no criminal record,no problems with drugs or alcohol,no learning difficulties,no mental problems,no ongoing domestic violence ,and a suitable home where the children can live.This will serve you better than any complaints about social workers or the courts !

Never explain your actions unless forced to do so by direct questions in court.If for example you are asked “did you go to London yesterday?” Reply simply “yes” if that was indeed the case .Never blurt out why you went,when you went,or more importantly what happened when you went as you may by doing this  give your enemies fresh information they can use against you. A simple yes,no,I don’t know,I don’t remember,answer most questions and a simple time, date or name can often answer the rest.Explanations usually make you sound worse not better ;so avoid them !Be the opposite in court of what the social workers say you are !If they say you are aggressive act timidly ;and if they say you are too shy and withdrawn be a bit aggressive ! If the police arrest you and/or ask to interview you about the way you look after your children you have the right to remain silent and I advise you to do so or to say “no comment” in response to their questions.Remember to stress that your children miss you NOT that you miss your children. It is your kid’s needs that must come first NOT your own ! :-

Points to make in discussions or in court if they fit your case especially if they want to take your baby at birth !

1) A policeman will arrest you for committing a crime but never because he/she thinks you might commit a crime next year !

2)For “xxxx” years children have thrived under my care and never been seriously hurt or neglected so please do not break up a happy family now ;

3) Experts and judges who try to predict the future based on past records are like bookmakers who tell you a horse ran well last month so it will win today ;No surprise when it comes last…… FUTURE PREDICTIONS ARE RUBBISH;

4) Gypsies with crystal balls and tarot cards can tell the future better than most because they have been doing it all their lives unlike social workers and judges who have no crystal balls but who still remove children based purely on future guesswork .

5) If so called experts could tell the future they would all be billionaires instead of being utterly confused by the corona virus, the long stalemate over Brexit ,and the destruction of the twin towers in New York on 9/11 !

6) There should be no punishment without crime and no children should be removed from a loving parent based on guesswork from amateur prophets

 

CROSS EXAMINATION (your right to question witnesses,especially untruthful social workers !)

You must ask questions and NEVER make speeches in cross examination.The witnesses will say what they want to say and you should note anything that is not true asking them “what evidence have you for that?Why do you say such a thing when you know it is not true? When did you see me ever harm my children?Can you read the future?If not how can you say I will harm my children one day?

NOW  See  videos by BBC, ITV, Channel 4,  a French production company  and  a speech from a conference in London on this site http://www.forced-adoption.com. The fact that I feature (positively) in all these  must surely show that my advice  deserves serious  consideration!

Contact me at ianjosephs1601@gmail.com if you have any queries or need help.

Please put your contact phone number on every email you send me so I can ring you back within 24 hours !

PLEASE WATCH THESE FABULOUS VIDEOS !!

1. Watch the BBC film   ‘Families flee UK to avoid forced adoption’. Inside Out was broadcast on BBC One South East on Monday, 6 October 2014. Rachel Royce reports.!

   Here’s the link ! JUST CLICK AND WATCH !: https://forced-adoption.com/#insideout.

2. Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1N9r2Vieg  A mother screams in agony as her newborn baby is ripped from her arms……….

3. See the programme below on Channel 4 News

   http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

4. Ian Josephs speaking at the ‘Children Screaming to be Heard’https://youtu.be/d8sukVI0UMM

   POLICE REMOVE SCREAMING CHILDREN

   https://youtu.be/9FVMbkGbEGE

    

   https://libertytactics.co.uk/ian-josephs-social-services-secret-courts-and-forced-adoption/

    

    

Scroll down for a more detailed summary which explains what is wrong,why it is wrong, what can be done to put it right , and also my more explanatory contact détails . Click on the menu at the very top of this page for any of the other sections you wish to consult.

SECTION 31 CHILDREN ACT 1989 is The worst  ever Act of Parliament re children 

 Care and SupervisionE+W

(1)On the application of any local authority or authorised person, the court may make an order—

(a)placing the child with respect to whom the application is made in the care of a designated local authority; or

(b)putting him under the supervision of a designated local authority F1. . ..

(2)A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied—

(a)that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b)that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—

(i)the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or

(ii)the child’s being beyond parental control.

JUDGES AND SOCIAL WORKERS SHOULD LEAVE  FUTURE PREDICTIONS TO  FORTUNE TELLERS AT THE FAIR GROUND AS THEY HAVE  CRYSTAL BALLS,TAROT CARDS, AND YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THAT JUDGES AND SOCIAL WORKERS DO NOT !!

New figures from the Department for Education disclosed for the first time that the authorities lost track of one in 10 children in care in 2017, with some going missing more over a month.

There were 60,720 incidents where a child went missing last year, meaning that on average children in care go missing six times per year.

And what about the children themselves?!
Well, when children of school age are taken into care they are gagged and usually are not allowed to testify in court that they want to return home even when begging to do so.

Squads of uniformed police cart them off at around 6.30am often screaming for their parents , and terrified when their mobile phones and laptops are confiscated to isolate them from family and friends.

Not all fosterers are paedophiles but for those who are …..fostering is the paedos paradise !At parents’ contact visits children in care are not allowed to discuss their cases, say they want to go home, complain of sexual or physical abuse by fosterers or social workers or even speak their own language if they are foreign. If they do any of these things contact is stopped immediately and sometimes indefinitely

 FREE SPEECH is ruthlessly CRUSHED by corrupt social workers and paedo fosterers so that the abuse can carry on and satisfy the base instincts of the dregs of our society………….

DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

A devastated father who is forced to speak to his severely autistic daughter through a hole in a door has won an extraordinary legal battle to talk about their plight after a council tried to gag him.

Jeremy from Walsall has now revealed his 17-year-old child Bethany is fed and talked to through the hole in the metal door to her tiny cell in a psychiatric hospital.

Bethany has been locked away for almost two years with just a mattress and a chair in a 12ft by 10ft room which costs £13,000 a week to theNHS.

Outraged by his daughter’s treatment for autism and sever anxiety, Jeremy began a social media campaign to free her.

But last week he was taken to court for his posts, as Walsall council sought an injunction to ban him from broadcasting details about her.

This would have meant he was breaking court imposed rules if he talked about her health or the facility she was being held in.

‘The attempt to silence me was never about caring for Bethany, it was never about protecting Bethany’s rights,’ the ex-teacher told The Times.

‘Nearly 1,500 children in England are locked up by the state’: Children’s Commissioner

‘A third of a billion a year is spent on 1,465 children’

There were 1,465 children in England securely detained in 2018, of whom 873 were in held in youth justice settings, 505 were in mental health wards and 87 were in secure children’s homes for their own welfare. However, this number is likely to be an underestimate due to gaps in the data. These are principal findings of a report published by Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner for England.

The report shines a light on the hundreds of children in England who are locked up in institutions across the country. The report, Who are they? Where are they? Children locked up, gathers together for the first time all the data currently available about those children in England living in secure children’s homes, youth justice settings, mental health wards and other residential placements, either for their own safety or the safety of others.

The report seeks to identify who these children are and where they living, the costs of keeping them locked up, whether these institutions always meet their complex needs and whether different decisions could have been taken to prevent these children being locked away.
Other main findings in the report include:

• We spend around £300m a year on 1,465 children in England – excluding what we spend on those ‘invisible’ children whose settings we don’t have information about.
• Medium Secure Mental Health Settings are the most expensive form of provision, at £1,611 a day or £588,015 a year. Secure Children’s Homes have an estimated cost per child of £210,000 per year, with Secure Training Centres at £160,000 a year and Young Offender Institutions at £76,000.
•  
• Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner for England, commenting on the report, said:

  “Our research shows the system that detains [children] is messy and the state often lacks very basic information about who all these children are, where they are living and why they are there. Shockingly, we found over 200 children who would have remained completely invisible in the national data had we not asked about them.

  “Locking children up is an extreme form of intervention. We are spending millions of pounds on these packages of care and yet there is far too little oversight of why they are there, their journeys into this system and the safeguards in place to protect them once they are there. These children are some of the most vulnerable and have often repeatedly been let down by the state earlier in their lives, in some cases turned away from foster homes or excluded from school.

Murderers and rapists in prison are treated much better than children in care as even the very worst criminals are allowed to phone and speak to  their visitors about anything they like in any language they choose.

SO TELL YOUR CHILDREN THE TRUTH !!

The “SS” will be telling your children in care that you (their mother or father)do not love them and do not want them at home at all!Eventually the children will believe this unless you tell them the truth and will even be” persuaded” to say they do not want to see you any more !

Talk by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division

The 6th Annual ‘Voice of the child’ FJYPB Conference in Manchester

24 July 2018

When I spoke at your Conference last year I apologised for the fact that I had failed you. I was referring to one of the most pressing issues we need to grapple with: how the family justice system can meet the aspirations and accommodate the needs of children who want to come to court, perhaps just to see the court, perhaps to give evidence or perhaps to meet the judge. I had to tell you that, despite three years of effort nothing had been achieved. I said that, if you were kind enough to ask me back again, I would report on progress a year later.

Well here I am again. I have to tell you that nothing has been achieved. In fact, matters are even worse now than they were a year ago – the Minister has, just a few days ago, written to me to announce the Government’s decision that the proposals which I and others have been pressing for cannot be implemented. This is deeply depressing news. I can only apologise again for my failure to achieve for you what is, as I believe, plainly the right thing to do.

The President also agreed with the somewhat controversial remarks of His Honour Judge Jack in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCC B77 (Fam) (emphasis added):

“…The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should, I am not condoning that for a moment, but the courts are not in the business of social engineering. The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the courts.”

Barnsley Chronicle  12/10/2018   Judge Moore compared Social Services to the Nazi “SS” !

A JUDGE likened Barnsley social services to the Nazi Party’s SS after a young girl who had expressed suicidal thoughts was subjected to a naked medical examination without her father’s consent.
“Social services were like the SS of Nazi Germany,” Judge Moore said. “They’re literally the SS in their name and their manner of working is somewhat draconian.

Judge Wilding slams social workers who broke up family over anonymous tip-off that boy, 12, claimed his mother threatened him with a knife

WHAT OTHER JUDGES SAY :-

1. 1: Lord Justice Thorpe said There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.
2. 2: Lord Justice Wall (the former Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.
3. 3: In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West
4. The podcast and transcript from the Debate that was held on 24 November is now on the Family Justice Council website. Please see the link below.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/advisory-bodies/fjc/conference-debates/debates/family-justice-council-9th-annual-debate/

MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PIMP OUT A WOMAN IN THEIR CARE !!

Autistic woman, 23, whose condition meant she sought risky sex was allowed to be ‘pimped out’ to strangers by carers so she could ‘learn from her mistakes’
•Woman looked after by Manchester City Council-employed firm Engage Support
•She repeatedly engaged in risky sexual behaviour while in the company’s care
•Led to a two-month scheme in which men were allowed to visit her home for sex

By Rory Tingle For Mailonline

An autistic woman whose condition meant she sought risky sex was allowed to be ‘pimped out’ to strangers by carers so she could ‘learn from her mistakes’, according to a report.

The 23-year-old, who has learning difficulties, went through a two-month trial approved by a court during which random men would visit her Manchester care home for sex during daylight hours.

Is this what they mean by the “Court of Protection” ???????

YOUR CHILDREN IN CARE

Find a way to tell them the truth at contact if possible without the “jailers” noticing or stopping you .You must say how you are fighting in the court to get them back but wicked people have stolen them for money ! Even quite young children can understand this. If you do nothing the “SS” will manage to turn your own children against you so please ACT NOW !

If we must have social workers they should be there to help and support problem families and never never appear as adversaries in a courtroom .That is the function of the police who are there to detect crimes such as abuse or neglect of children and should never be any part of the duties of genuine social workers whose real job should be to help parents and not to snatch their children. IGNORE social workers ;Never obey them ,talk to them,or let them in your house, as they have no authority .They rely on bluff and bluster to get the evidence from you to help them take your children.They make their living that way…….They will even tell you that you will go to prison if you discuss your case with anyone! That is in fact a lie as the law says that you can talk with individuals  but not reveal children’s names or your own name to “sections of the public” (public mmeetings,tv,radio,facebook etc) until all court proceedings have finished and then you can reveal all !!

Figures from the department of Education show there are now 36,000 Social Workers in the UK and only 34,000 GPs ! Yes MORE Social Workers than Doctors !!  UGH!!!

Ignore also legal aid lawyers ,known in the trade as “Professional losers” because they work with the social workers ,gagging  parents (and children in care) to make sure the”SS” win in court Yes “free speech” goes out of the window for parents and children both in and out of our UK  family courts ! .Represent yourself by sacking these  lawyer/enemies who are only there to betray you.Also never go to a psychiatrist or worse still a psychologist chosen by the “SS” or the court (legally they should be chosen jointly).They are known as “hired guns” who diagnose “difficult” parents who resist the “SS” with personality disorders and so unfit to care for babies…

If we must have these biased judges (who believe predictions from absent experts over live testimony from parents)  and prejudiced family courts (L.J.Thorpe)   I CHALLENGE any  judge  to name just one situation that could justify the vile practice of authorising the taking of babies at birth from sane law abiding mothers for “RISK” of emotional abuse and then giving these babies and young children up for adoption by complete strangers .I maintain that.in NO circumstances can  such horrors.be justified….

Do you LOVE Social Workers??
If a single mum (for example) is told by a neighbour “a social worker called on you while you were out” the reaction would not be “what a pity I missed her” but would almost certainly be “My God they are after my children !”That is why social workers are the most hated profession in the country

Boy, eight, was taken from his family and put in foster care after social worker said his mother didn’t take him for ice cream or let him get his hair cut how he liked

• Mr Justice Mostyn described the social worker’s claims as ‘utterly insubstantial’
• The boy, now eight, taken away from his mother and made to live in foster care
• Social worker said ‘best example’ of neglect was not giving the boy ice cream
• Mr Justice Mostyn overruled a court hearing Swansea to rule he can return home

By Charlie Bayliss For Mailonline

Published: 18:00 BST, 13 June 2018 | Updated: 06:26 BST, 14 June 2018

A Freedom Of Information request has revealed that at least 5,000 children in care in England and Wales, have been separated from their siblings.
The staggering figure was revealed after 50 councils responded to the request. The actual figure, however, is likely to be much higher. There are 125 ‘single tier’ authorities in England and Wales, which all function as billing authorities for Council Tax and local education authorities.

Can you go to the omsbudsman who is there we are told to correct any injustice by public authorities??

NO alas the secret family courts are exempt and nothing they do or say however horrific can be challenged by the omsbudsman There is too much cash being made to allow any interference !

Social Services view happy UK families that want nothing to do with them or their services as “the enemy” to be crushed and broken up at all costs!
They split husbands from wives (or partners) ,separate siblings from each other, banish the grandparents,and promote more and more fostering and adoptions every year.
The system feeds on itself ,yes there are huge financial incentives for fostering and adoption agencies and special schools , but the expansion happens irrespective of these as more and more people make a living out of other folk’s misery !Foreign siblings are extra special targets as not only are their phones and laptops confiscated to isolate them from family and friends but they are forbidden to speak their own language even to each other. Only English allowed even if they do not know more than a few words !
All the above is usually quite enough to break the spirit of even the most rebellious children and that gladdens the heart of the child snatchers !

 

BEWARE ,BEWARE ,BEWARE !!

Crooked solicitors and bent barristers who betray you  as they work for the SS not for you ! HOW DO YOU TELL WHO THEY ARE????It really is very very easy !!!These treacherous scoundrels gag their own clients and tell them to “work with social services” !(the very same people who make their living taking children and who perhaps took your’s) Yes they stop parents defending themselves and then agree with everything the “SS” demand !

Yes there are a very few “honest lawyers” ;How do you tell who they are? Well, if they promise you to fight the social services every step of the way to keep your children or to get them back and also if they promise to let you speak so that you can make all the points you like (not just let you answer questions!) then you might have hit on a good’un !

If your lawyers gag you  SACK THEM ON THE SPOT IN COURT and represent yourself so you can at least defend yourself against the false allegations that are sure to be made against you..If you do not deny what the “SS” say about you the judge will assume that everything they say about you is true !NEVER be gagged!Deny false allegations.

Nearly as bad are “advisors” who are not lawyers but who will promise you miracles if you give them your money ! Beware Beware as most (but not all) of them are scammers living off the misery of others who then lose not only their children but also their money !!Offer to pay reasonable expenses but no actual fee and you will soon see who is genuine !

What should you do then?REPRESENT YOURSELF !!  You do not need a law degree to explain that you are a good mum or dad and that you love your children and would never harm them.At least you can then read out a complete statement in court  denying the false allegations made against you by the “SS” and showing the judge that your children are better off with parents who love them than complete strangers who do not !

JUDICIAL COURT STATISTICS (page 26)

In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.

Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?

Judicial and Court statistics 2011 – Gov.uk

Catherine Smith commented on her post in UK ABUSES THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS HUMAN RIGHTS.

Dubious ‘experts’ are paid to tear families apart

A new report condemns the shoddy standards of psychologists’ reports in our family courts.

BEWARE BEWARE Only agree to see a psychiatrist or psychologist who is qualified ,has a private practice and does NOT make their living appearing in court to declare parents unfit to keep their children !If in doubt ask them how many times they do this and how many private patients they have !

By Zoie O’brien For Mailonline

 

Why I  invented the phrase “FORCED ADOPTION” and named my site that way.

It was around the year 2003 that I realised that adoption without parental consent (as it was known then) was being carried out despite opposition from parents fighting in court to keep their children.That was  in effect “forced adoption” .I therefore created this” forced adoption” site http://www.forced-adoption.com and the term “forced adoption” has passed into current and popular use in the English language !

NOV 2013 – THIRD EDITION NOW AVAILABLE.
My book (448 pages) is available at cost price: £8.86 + postage by clicking here. Or DOWNLOAD A PDF VERSION FREE OF CHARGE

If you don’t have a credit card you can buy a copy directly from the author by sending a cheque or a postal order payable to Ian Josephs for £8.86 to:

Ian Josephs  HLI  20 Avenue de Fontvieille  MC 98000 Monaco

A SHORT EDITION of my book (200 pages) is now also available at cost price: £4.90 + postage (or download for free) by clicking here. Again, you can also buy this directly from the author by sending a cheque or a postal order for £4.90 to the Monaco address above.

These books are also available from Amazon

The UK is the ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD  where:-

1:- A steady stream of parents flee the country every year to avoid having their babies and young children taken from them by the State for forced adoption. Social workers,behaving like police , take babies at birth from mothers ,not for anything they have done but for something someone with a “Crystal Ball” thinks they might do in the future !

WHERE THE MONEY GOES!!

2014 payment now £590 per week per child!Most fosterers double this by taking in two children ! As advertised on the back of a bus….

 

Despite all these wonderful descriptions of overpaid foster carers, 10,000 children went “missing” from care, as you will see from the article below:

Joint Inquiry into Children Who Go Missing from Care

Extract (point 9):

In June 2012, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the APPG for Looked-after Children and Care Leavers published the report of their joint inquiry into children who go missing from care.

The report argued that the Government was under-reporting the number of children going missing from care. While the official figure for 2011 was 930, the report argues that, according to police data, an estimated 10,000 individual children went missing. The report cited that this high number was symptomatic of a care system which was far from being fit for purpose and in need of an urgent rethink.

For the full report click here

———- STOP PRESS !The agency above has been sold for £130+million!

Parents who’ve lost kids in shadowy secret courts slam ruthless millionaires cashing in on UK’s fostering crisis

1. Foster care and Adoptions have become  lucrative business. Whether they should be  businesses at all is another question.

   Click on the relevant link below to go straight to a particular company

2. ALAS the links to these dreadful companies have all been removed !:Foster Care Associates; National Fostering Agency, The Foster Care Agency; Acorn Care and Education, Fostering Solutions, Pathway Care Fostering and Heath Farm Fostering; Partnerships in Children’s Services, Orange Grove, ISP, Fosterplus and Clifford House; Swiis Foster Care; Capstone Foster Care; Compass Fostering, The Fostering Partnership

3. Private foster care agencies increasing cost of finding children homes

    This article is more than 1 year old

   Analysis reveals multimillion-pound dividends and huge salaries at independent foster agencies

   Rob Davies

    @ByRobDavies

   Tue 30 Jan 2018 06.00 GMTLast modified on Tue 30 Jan 2018 08.51 GMT

   •  
   •  
   •  

   Shares

   489

    

   

    

   Foster care agencies run for profit by private equity investors are pushing up the cost of placing vulnerable children with families, local authorities have warned.

   Concern about independent foster agencies (IFAs) came as a Guardian investigation revealed that one of the largest firms in the sector channelled money to Luxembourg via a complex loan arrangement. Analysis of the accounts of several private equity-owned IFAs, which charge councils to match children with foster carers, also reveals multimillion-pound dividends paid to investors and six-figure salaries for directors.

   The details emerged ahead of the government’s national fostering stocktake, which is due to report on the sector. Ahead of the report, councillors and foster care veterans voiced concern at the effect of IFAs on council budgets. IFAs typically pay carers higher fees than local authorities and sometimes offer “golden handshakes” worth up to £3,000 to poach them from rival agencies.

   David Simmonds, a Conservative councillor who is vice-chair of the Local Government Association (LGA), said that if cash constrained local authorities could pay carers more to retain them they would end up spending less overall.

   “What appears to be happening is that the agencies see they can make money out of something local authorities have to supply by law,” he said. “They offer carers 25% more and then charge the local authority double or triple what they would pay in-house and make a nice bit of profit. From the agency’s point of view it’s a no-lose situation. The shortage of carers means there isn’t competition so prices don’t come down. It’s a market that isn’t functioning, to the detriment of the state.”

   Carers are in short supply, but councils are legally obliged to find a foster home for vulnerable children, meaning they are often forced to turn to IFAs if they don’t have in-house carers. Fees paid to IFAs per foster child are almost 92% higher than those paid directly to carers registered with the council, according to a 2016 report by government adviser Sir Martin Narey, with the average fee per week rising to £759 for IFAs, from £396 for council-registered carers.

   Narey said the gulf was “very large”, even if there were some reasons other than profit to explain it – such as IFA-registered carers taking on more challenging cases. According to Coventry city council, its IFA placements cost £40,000 on average per year compared with £30,000 for council-registered placements.

   The number of children living with foster carers registered to IFAs rose 5% to 17,410 from 2012 to 2016, according to government figures, compared with a 1% rise in children with carers registered directly to the council, to 34,395.

   Liverpool councillor Barry Kushner said the cost of paying inflated fees to IFAs had cost the council an extra £6m in one year. He said the council has begun trying to lure foster families back in-house by offering incentives such as reduced council tax, training and free leisure centre passes.

   A spate of mergers and acquisitions among foster care firms, typified by last year’s £400m tie-up between the National Fostering Agency and rival Acorn, has fuelled concern about IFAs.

   Andy Elvin, chief executive of fostering and adoption charity TACT, warned that consolidation would reduce competition.

   “We are moving towards some de facto monopolies or potential cartels of private IFA supply,” he said. “As companies get bigger and have more power over local authorities, they hold more of the supply. This can lead to costs being increased to local authorities, because they need the placements.”

   Advertisement

    

   The merger between Acorn and NFA created a vast fostering company owned by private equity group Stirling Square Capital Partners (SSCP).

   Analysis by the Guardian of accounts filed at Companies House reveals that the firm uses a corporate structure that transfers money to a parent company in Luxembourg. SSCP owns the firms via subsidiary SSCP Spring Topco, which had annual revenues of £104m but lost £21m after hefty interest payments on loans. This included an interest payment on a £62.5m loan from the Luxembourg parent company. Interest payments have the effect of reducing a company’s taxable profit.

   The accounts also show that SSCP Spring Topco’s highest-paid director took home £319,345 for the year. The Guardian has contacted Stirling Square for comment about whether the loan structure generates a tax benefit.

   Two other companies in the sector, Orange Grove Fostercare and Partnerships in Children’s Services (PICS), are owned by private equity group Sovereign Capital. Labyrinthine accounts for the Orange Grove group show that a parent company, Boston Holdo B, paid investors a dividend of £1.7m last year and took investor loans of £5.4m, paying an interest rate of 14%.

   Sister company PICS paid £2.2m interest on borrowings including £14m of loans from investors, some of whom were company directors. The highest paid director took home £200,000, including pension contributions.

   Sovereign said the high-interest loans were “normal practice” and that it paid all “applicable” tax.

   Elvin said: “Any money leaving the system is not being spent directly on vulnerable children. Therefore all dividends, bonuses etc are being paid directly from taxpayers’ money allocated to be spent on children in care.

   “The private sector is not driving down cost through competition, it is not driving up quality and it is taking out significant sums of taxpayers’ money. Where is the benefit to the taxpayer or to children in care?

Inter Agency Fees – CVAAwww.cvaa.org.uk/the-voluntary-adoption-sector/inter-agency-fees

The interagency fee is a nationally agreed mechanism for covering the costs incurred in the preparation, approval and matching of prospective adopters, and the support provided during the first 12 months of a placement. It is currently set at £27,000 for the placement of a single child, with additional rates for the placement ..

 

Treated like CATTLE!’: Vulnerable children are being auctioned online by councils inviting private firms to bid for up to £7,000-a-week for their care

New report found councils offering contracts for vulnerable children online 

• Details about age, previous abuse history and gang involvement included in ads 
• Children in private care can cost over £7,000, while council-run care is cheaper 
• Local authorities have blamed lack of money and funds for their shortcomings

 

By Charlie Bayliss For Mailonline

Tanya Byron described a careworker publicly shaming a teenager in one episode as ‘everything you shouldn’t do’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos for the Observer

These young people often have complex needs and may require urgent therapeutic support. However, child psychologist Professor Tanya Bryon, commenting on one episode where a care worker publicly shames a 13-year-old boy in a restaurant, questions the training and expertise shown, describing it as “an example of everything you shouldn’t do when working with vulnerable children”.

Residential care does not come cheap. The filmmakers confirmed with Cambian Group that one home that employed their undercover reporter charges £4,800 a week. A Keys home that features in the film charged a council £5,100 a week. Meanwhile, care staff are told to keep to tight budgets: one worker quoted £5 a day per child for food. At a Cambian home, the budget per child was said to be £45 for activities, with £50 for meals. The two reporters employed by Keys and Cambian were paid £7.20 per hour and £16,500 a year respectively.

In January of this year, Michael Robinson was jailed for eight years for indecently assaulting two boys when he was officer-in-charge at the Hazelwood children’s home in Forest Fields.

He was the 12th person to be convicted under Nottinghamshire Police’s Operation Equinox, which is investigating allegations of historical abuse at children’s homes.

Seven of these relate to abuse actually carried out in children’s homes, while the others are for associated offences such as illegally accessing computer material or carrying out abuse at other locations.

However, Equinox and its predecessors – Operations Daybreak and Xeres – only date back to 2011.

There were other convictions before 2011.

And there are now at least ten children’s homes in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire where staff have been convicted of sexually abusing youngsters.

In the city, there are six homes, as below.

MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PIMP OUT A WOMAN IN THEIR CARE !!

Autistic woman, 23, whose condition meant she sought risky sex was allowed to be ‘pimped out’ to strangers by carers so she could ‘learn from her mistakes’
•Woman looked after by Manchester City Council-employed firm Engage Support
•She repeatedly engaged in risky sexual behaviour while in the company’s care
•Led to a two-month scheme in which men were allowed to visit her home for sex

By Rory Tingle For Mailonline

An autistic woman whose condition meant she sought risky sex was allowed to be ‘pimped out’ to strangers by carers so she could ‘learn from her mistakes’, according to a report.

The 23-year-old, who has learning difficulties, went through a two-month trial approved by a court during which random men would visit her Manchester care home for sex during daylight hours.

Is this what they mean by the “Court of Protection” ???????

‘Treated like CATTLE!’: Vulnerable children are being auctioned online by councils inviting private firms to bid for up to £7,000-a-week for their care

• New report found councils offering contracts for vulnerable children online 
• Details about age, previous abuse history and gang involvement included in ads 
• Children in private care can cost over £7,000, while council-run care is cheaper 
• Local authorities have blamed lack of money and funds for their shortcomings

By Charlie Bayliss For Mailonline

Published: 09:23 GMT, 10 November 2018 | Updated: 09:24 GMT, 10 November 2018

Opinion

Child protection

2:- PERHAPS THE WORST THING OF ALL :-The UK is the ONLY country in the world where Babies are taken at birth for “RISK of emotional abuse”
Yes it really is true  as  most of the mothers who phone me complain because  social workers acting as though they were police but with no authority to do so, snatch babies at birth from the hospital for this hypothetical“RISK of emotional abuse” .Social workers by acting in this way  are claiming to read the future with neither Crystal ball nor tarot cards or even simple tealeaves !This is I believe the ONLY example in UK law where a law abiding Citizen can be punished in the worst possible way (permanent loss of a child) not for something that PARENT has done but merely because it is thought that there is a RISK !!

NUMBER OF BABIES TAKEN AT BIRTH DOUBLES !!

The first ever national study of newborns in England has revealed that the number of babies taken into care who are less than one week old, has more than doubled in a decade. In most instances, babies would have been taken from their mothers while still in hospital.

The research, which was carried out by Professor Karen Broadhurst, on behalf of the Nuffield Foundation, and which used data supplied by CAFCASS, found that care proceedings were issued for 1,039 newborns in 2007/8, (32% of all cases involving an infant age under 1 year). However, this number had more than doubled at 2,447 newborns (42% of all infant cases), by 2017.

In 2002 Tom Cruise starred in the film “Minority Report” .In the year 2054 citizens were punished for crimes they were predicted to commit in the future ! That,believe it or not is the situation for British parents right NOW today !!

ONE OF THE RISKS OF FORCED ADOPTION  IS “ADOPTION BREAKDOWN” !

Figures obtained following a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to all English local authorities indicates that since 2012, across all council areas, there have been as many as 679 breakdowns within the first year of a placement.

During the same period there have been 528 breakdowns after the placement becomes official – making a total of 1,207 breakdowns over the five-year period.

England: 2011 – 2015   NSPCC STATISTICS

Children and young people who were the subject of a Child Protection Plan (CPP)

by category of abuse at 31 March.

Category of abuse 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Neglect 18,600 18,220 17,930 20,970 22,230

Physical abuse 4,800 4,690 4,670 4,760 4,350  = 9.3% reduction since 2011 !

Sexual abuse 2,400 2,220 2,030 2,210 2,340 =  2%reduction since 2011 !

Emotional abuse 11,400 12,330 13,640 15,860 16,660  =46% increase since 2011 !!!

Multiple 5,500 5,390 4,870 4,500 4,110

Total 42,700 42,850 43,140 48,300 49,690

So baby P caused a  social workers to concentrate not on physical abuse but  emotional abuse (risk of?).Not the picture usually painted !

Once in court the urgent objective of social workers is to WIN their case come what may as their careers can depend on it, so they produce “hired gun” Professional psychologists/psychiatrists who regularly back them up in the family courts by exaggerating unlikely risks from parents with so called “personality disorders” even if parents have never harmed anyone in their lives !Everyone can have a different opinion about such so called risks but both before and after these babies are snatched family court judges will nearly always rubberstamp the snatching and later order forced adoption of these little mites by strangers ! That way social workers can blame judges for the cruelty these actions entail .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35088794 Record numbers of UK babies taken at birth !!

And if the parents do win in court and are awarded damages they receive nothing as the lawyers take it all and around £200,000 as well for their “costs”

Parents had week-old baby taken away by social services after father …

In 1992 the Government reported on how the CHILDREN Act was working in practice.
The report’s preface, signed by Virginia Bottomley, stated that, since it was now recognised that “the best place for children to grow up in is in their own home with their own family”, the number of children “entering compulsory care” had fallen to 1,600, just a quarter of the previous figure; so that only 5,000 children were now “being looked after by local authorities”.
The contrast to what has happened since, is staggering, Today the number of children in care in the UK is more than 90,000.AN INCREASE OF 1700% !

Ninety children are being taken into care every day in England and Wales and it’s claimed social workers are “firefighting” the most serious cases late into the night.

Prof Ray Jones, who works in social services improvement, says staff fear children slip through the net as they try to keep up with rising pressures.

Latest government figures show 32,810 children were taken into care in 2017.

Ministers said extra money was being targeted towards improving services.

The total number of children in care is a record 72,670 – up 3% on 2016.

Council bosses, who are responsible for child protection services, say it’s the biggest rise in seven years.

Adoption target met

by Hammersmith and Fulham Press Office 10/03/2008
101 children adopted in the last three years

More than 100 children have been adopted in the borough during the last three years, after the Council met a target from central Government target that many experts thought would be unachievable.

The Government target, known as a Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA), challenged the Council to successfully achieve 101 adoptions or secure placements during the last three year period in return for £500,000 of funding.

At the time, the Council felt that the bar was set too high, as in the previous three year period only 71 children had been adopted – a figure that was then considered to be very high.

However, H&F’s adoption team swung into action and pulled out all of the stops in order to meet the target.

THE ONLY JUDGE TRYING TO REFORM FAMILY COURTS IS PRESIDENT SIR JAMES MUNBY

The Law Gazette:- reports.on the RETIREMENT of Sir James MUNBY……..

Lately, Munby has repeated calls for urgent action to address the needs of children and vulnerable witnesses in family proceedings. Rules and practice directions recommended by a working group he set up two years ago were still not in place.

Munby said he did not want to have to start 2018 with a further call to action, adding that there was ’depressingly little to show for over two years’ hard pounding’.

Maggie Mellon, British Association of Social workers; Vice Chair  says:-

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/19/parents

“I believe that suspicion of parents and of families has become corrosive, and is distorting the values of our profession.

For the last 20 plus years the number of investigations or assessments into families suspected of child abuse has climbed steadily upwards and now accounts for one in 20 families in England and Wales !!!

A recent analysis found that since the Children Act 1989 referrals have increased by 311%, from 160,000 per year to 657,800 per year, between 1991 and 2014.

Assessments have increased by 302% over the same period, from 120,000 to 483,800, while the number of cases of ‘core abuse’ have fallen. The figures show that the ratio of referrals to registrations have fallen year on year from 24.1% to 7.3%.

Child protection dominates work

These assessments will have been carried out mainly by social workers. For social workers in statutory children and family teams there is no doubt that ‘child protection’ dominates every aspect of their work. Despite there being no significant rise in the number of children who die as a result of parental abuse or neglect, risk of abuse is assumed to be high.

What does this say about how social workers view parents and families? And, just as importantly, what must it tell us about how parents view contact with social services? I believe that the evidence is mounting of mutual distrust and fear

“The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent.  That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that ….”

Dave Hill, 57, the new president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS), used his inaugural speech last month to demand a debate about the limits of state interference in family life, saying plainly that “we intervene too often and sometimes too readily”.

Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B:

There is usually no reason in most cases why the child should not be returned to parents under a supervision order.

Contact the Daily MAIL with your story !  tips@dailymail.com
By Steve Doughty for the Daily Mail
Published: 18:06 GMT, 18 February 2014 | Updated: 22:09 GMT, 18 February 2014
e-mail
Judges and social workers have been conspiring to remove children unjustly from their parents, a scathing High Court ruling said today.
It condemned family court judges for a ‘clandestine arrangement’ which meant that they simply rubber-stamped the demands of social workers without giving a fair hearing to the pleas of parents.
Rulings by family judges were ‘cut and pasted’ from recommendations emailed to the court by social workers, the High Court found

The secret dealings between council officials and local judges were revealed in a High Court appeal in which Mrs Justice Pauffley ordered that a mother be re-united with her baby.
The baby was taken by social workers following a court case described by Mrs Justice Pauffley as ‘profoundly alarming’.
The High Court judge warned that ‘the practices I have described are not confined to this area but are widespread across the country’.
She said of the case, which involved judges at an unnamed family court and social workers employed by an unnamed council: ‘It is difficult to view the justices as having been independent and impartial if, as happened here, they simply adopted the local authority’s analysis of what their findings and reasons might comprise.
‘Just because there may be tacit acceptance on the part of many professionals within the family justice system that the practice which operated here exists, that does not mean it is right.
‘It is patently wrong, must stop at once and never happen again.

The order to end collusion between judges and social workers was endorsed yesterday by the most senior family judge, President of the Family Division Sir James Munby

The secrecy surrounding the two court systems is now being loosened on the instructions of Sir James, who has acted to prevent both clandestine imprisonment and the removal of children from foreign mothers by British judges.
The exposure of private arrangements between family judges and social workers was exposed following an appeal by a mother whose child was taken into care.
The 32-year-old mother, a longstanding drug and drink abuser with a history of domestic violence, had had seven previous children. Six are living with their two fathers and one is in the process of being adopted. When she became pregnant again, she was given a place in a unit run by a specialist family drugs and alcohol service.
Mrs Justice Pauffley said it was ‘plain’ that social workers took a decision in advance to remove her baby, who was born in October last year. They cited the mother’s bleak history.
Family judges first heard the case on 1 November. They were presented with an expert report on the mother, commissioned by social workers and prepared by chartered clinical psychologist Dr Celest Van Rooyen. The psychologist, who also gave ‘very strong and powerful’ evidence in person, said the baby was at risk of harm.
The judges declared that ‘the immediate risk of harm is such that his safety requires the continuing removal from his mother’s care. It is proportionate and in his best interests.’ At a second hearing a week later, the same judges said the baby should stay with foster parents because ‘he needs to form an attachment with his primary carers.’ Mrs Justice Pauffley criticised the handling of the case in blunt and uncompromising language.
She said the Van Rooyen report on the mother had been researched and written in a day and the psychologist had spoken neither to the mother nor the medical and psychological experts with whom she and the baby were living. Instead, Dr Van Rooyen had relied on documents and a phone call to a social worker.
Mrs Justice Pauffley said: ‘It surprises and alarms me that Dr Van Rooyen was asked, and was prepared, to provide a report during the course of a single working day, a terrifyingly tight timeframe, and on the basis of papers supplemented by a telephone conversation with a local authority professional who had never met the mother.
‘I struggle to understand how Dr Van Rooyen’s apparently firm opinions, adverse to the mother, could have been formed given the complete absence of any kind of discussion with her.’ The High court judge said the family court judges had not written their own ‘findings of fact and reasons’ – their ruling in the case. The entire document had instead been emailed to them by lawyers for the local council before the 1 November hearing.

A near-identical document was drawn up by the judges after the second hearing. Mrs Justice Pauffley said this was ‘the result, almost certainly of cutting and pasting.’ Mrs Justice Pauffley said this practice ‘has become the norm’ in local family courts.
She said she was ‘profoundly alarmed’ at the practice, which was widespread.
‘There was, apparently, an established but largely clandestine arrangement between the local authority and the court which, to my mind, has considerable repercussions for justice.’ Mrs Justice Pauffley added: ‘In public law proceedings the local authority is the applicant. It is not and should never be seen as the decision maker. That is the role of the court.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562249/It-never-happen-Appeal-judge-slams-cut-paste-decision-family-court-led-social-workers-taking-baby-parents-unjustly.html#ixzz59HyR6Wnf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

BUT see how they break the law by censoring what a mother can say to a 12 year old child! Most parents have to sign something similar or contact is stopped !

Supervised contact

Supervised contact will take place three times a week. Currently there are two regular sessions on Tuesdays and Fridays, between 3;30 and 4;45pmLukes Social Worker will make arrangements on a weekly basis in regards to the third supervised session until a contact supervisor can be allocated.

Contact betweenLuke and his mum wll be supervised by a contact supervisor at all times. The contact sessions will take place at the West Area Duty and Family Support Teams offices.

Telephone contact is to take place only under Lukes foster carers supervision.Telephone contact is to only last five minutes and is to be initiated by Luke only.

Ms Marques is expected to end the telephone conversation herself in an appropriate way once the five minutes have lapsed.

Luke will be transported from school and to the foster placement by a professional appointed by the West Area Duty and Family Support Team.

Ms Marques is expected to support Luke while he is staying with his foster carer.

She is not to encourage Luke to have any other form of contact with her apart from what has been officially agreed with the Local Authority. The Local Authority is worried that ms Marques has limited insight into how her functioning impacts upon Luke and that there is a risk that Lukes placement will be de-stabilised and Luke experience further emotional harm as a result of this.

Ms Marques is strongly advised ; to engage with Luke in a child centered positive way during contact. If she finds this difficult she is encouraged to request support/advice from the contact supervisor.

The contact supervisor will from now on make activities available during contact. Ms Marques is advised to engage with these activities and encourage Luke to do so aswell.

Ms Marques is encouraged to bring board games with her etc that she and Luke might enjoy playing during contact.

Ms Marques should not discuss issues relating to the ongoing court proceedings. If in any case Luke brings up the subject himself she is to encourage him to discuss these issues with his social worker and/or guardian.

Ms Marques should not make reference to herself and her current situation if this will result in Luke feeling worried/guilty about ” mum being on her own”.

Ms Marques is to make reference to Lukes father and paternal side of the family in a positive way at all times.

Ms Marques is expected to make reference to all professionals involved with Luke in a positive way.She is to encourage Luke to be open and trusting of these professionals.

If Ms Marques feels anxious/unwell she is expected to seek help from her GP and /or her mental health key-worker. Lukes social worker is to be notified of this as soon as that is possible. If in any case contact is to be affected, then Ms Marques is expected to make contact with Lukes social worker immediately.

Ms M is expected to keep to all the points made in this written agreement.

If Ms Marques fails to keep to any of the expectations as set out by this written agreement; it is made clear that the contact supervisor has been instructed that contact is to be stopped, and Ms Marques will be asked to leave.

The Local Authority will also review the contact arrangements and amend them as necessary to promote and ensure Lukes welfare and safety.

This is not a legally binding document and all relevant parties are encouraged to seek legal advise if they wish to do so.

Any changes to contact will take place only once an updated written agreement has been drafted and signed by all relevant parties.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CHANGE THIS SITUATION ?The only remedy is new legislation on similar lines to the following:-

1:-No Punishment without Crime. Children must never be removed for simple “risk” (of something that may never happen)

Children must never be considered for removal from their parents unless a parent has been convicted in a criminal court of a serious crime against a child or children.If a parent is charged with such a crime the child or children may be removed temporarily but returned if the parent is acquitted.Parents of foreign children taken into care or placed for adoption should be deported with their children to their home country if that is their choice made to keep their families together.

2:- Parents and children must never be legally gagged

Restore absolute freedom of speech and public protest as already exists in the USA;. Parents must be allowed to identify themselves and protest via the media if their children are taken from them.When children are in care they should be allowed free discussion with relatives and friends,and given  mobile phones if of an age when they can use one.They should be allowed to speak their own language (if foreign) to parents and others.All allegations of abuse in care should be investigated by police and never ignored.Parents must have the right to call their own children to court as their witnesses (Article 6 human rights act ) irrespective of age.

3:-Always allow some form of contact between non criminal parents and children..

Parents not guilty of crimes against children must never be deprived of  face to face contact with their children; but even if they have been convicted of such crimes (providing those offences do not include child sexual relations or violence towards their own children) they should then still be allowed to initiate indirect contact by phone,email,or post . Non molestation orders should only have effect if a parent molests a partner ,spouse or child ;To molest =to intentionally harass or annoy  (Oxford dictionary) and must not extend to legal  prevention of indirect contact.

4:-Abolish forced adoption !

Forced adoption = adoption despite active opposition from parents via the courts and other forms of protest.The UK is the only country in the world in which babies can be taken at birth for “risk of future emotional abuse” and then forcibly adopted despite law abiding mothers begging to keep them !.

5:-Abolish closed adoptions!

Adoptions in the UK are nearly always “closed” meaning that the parents do not know who is adopting their children or where they are going.Bereft parents usually lose contact with their precious children permanently ie for the rest of their lives and never know whether their children are alive or dead !

All adoptions should be “open” so that parents know who has care of their children and occasional contact can be arranged.

CAN THIS WORK? Well look at the USA where a recent survey found that 100 infant adoption programs in the United States reported 5% of their adoptions were completely closed, while 55% were fully open and 40% were mediated through an agency.

HOW TO BRING ABOUT THE ABOVE CHANGES ?

All major changes are brought about by parliament as only MPs can bring about changes in the law by their votes in the House of Commons. They will only do this if public opinion is strong enough to cost them votes and possibly their seats if they do not comply;Most  MPs advertise in local press and on the internet their surgeries to hear grievances from constituents at least once a month. Parents should press for changes in the law at these meetings  with their own MPs.Do not as a rule plead your own case as most MPs will refuse to interfere with the courts but cannot easily refuse to discuss changes in the law that you suggest.Also write letters to all the National and also local newspapers that you can think of cutting and pasting the above  paras or writing your own versions if you prefer. If enough pressure is brought in this way the law will eventually be changed.

Mother has SIXTEEN babies taken away from her: Shocking case revealed as number of newborns removed at birth and put into care soars by 150% in five years

• Woman lost 16 babies one after another and is still of child-bearing age;The judges refuse to give her a chance to keep even one of them Under a supervision order;despite hair tests showing her 100% free of any drugs,or alcohol !

• Study shows dramatic increase in babies being removed by the courts

• In 2008, a total of 802 babies were taken into care, rising to 2,018 in 2013

• Education Secretary Nicky Morgan called for the end of the ‘cycle of failure’

• Cameron orders blitz of failing social services where children are at risk 

By Matt Chorley, Political Editor for MailOnline

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3359073/Mother-16-babies-taken-away-number-newborns-removed-birth-soars-150-five-years.html#ixzz4M02LfJqF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Tragedy of 4,000 babies placed on ‘at risk’ register… before they’re born

• New figures mark a 13per cent increase over two years deemed at risk of physical or emotional negligence
• Campaigners said to put unborn children on register presumes parents will be negligent

By Martin Beckford and Stephen Adams

Thousands of babies are being put on ‘at risk’ registers by social workers before they are even born, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

And campaigners say the system is weighted to presume that parents will be unable to adequately care for their children.

New figures released under Freedom of Information laws show that more than 4,000 child protection plans – which are automatically implemented for those registered as at risk – were initiated last year in England for babies still in the womb, which represents a 13 per cent increase over two years.

The figure for the UK as a whole is likely to be nearer 5,000, and hundreds of babies are being taken into care each year within days of birth.

Statistics  that show how much it all costs and how thousands of children run away from wonderful State Care (usually back to their parents !).The parliamentary briefing clearly states “Using the data collected and approach adopted this year we estimate that the average cost of residential care provision per child per week is around £2,900   !!!

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04470.pdf  = VERY COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS COMPILED FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY

1. Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk
2. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35064228
3. Child protection register statistics: England: 2011 – 2015 –
4. .‘Huge rise’ in newborn babies subject to care proceedings – BBC News

   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35088794

   JUDICIAL COURT STATISTICS (page 26)

   In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.

   Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?

   Judicial and Court statistics 2011 – Gov.uk

   Lord Justice Thorpe said” There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.”

   Thorpe admits the parents are prejudiced by the courts if the proceedings take place after removal of their children by social workers(which of course happens more often than not !)

   Sad admission of disgracefully biased court procedures in our much praised UK judicial system

    

IF  you missed them at the beginning ,here is another chance to see the 3 fabulous videos made by the BBC, ITV,and Channel 4 news!

Watch the BBC film   ‘Families flee UK to avoid forced adoption’. Inside Out was broadcast on BBC One South East on Monday, 6 October 2014. Rachel Royce reports.!
Here’s the link to share this: https://forced-adoption.com/#insideout.

1. Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1N9r2Vieg    A mother screams in agony as her newborn baby is ripped from her arms………

2. See the programme below on Channel 4 News

   http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

3. Ian Josephs speaking at the ‘Children Screaming to be Heard’ conference, London April 2016

   https://youtu.be/d8sukVI0UMM

4. On November 15th 2016 a documentary aired on French television called ‘England’s Stolen Children’. ‘Researching Reform’ provided comment and a useful translation of the explanation of the programme’s contents.  If your French is good enough, you can watch the documentary here.

: Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform  our  family courts and social services all on one page !

http://www.forced-adoption.com .I repeat !  More detailed information about how to contact me and how I CAN HELP YOU

CONTACT IAN !
http://www.forced-adoption.com

I will give free legal advice and other help to ANY parent (or grandparent) ha>ving problems with social workers who are removing or threatening to remove  children for fostercare or adoption. Unlike legal aid lawyers I usually advise parents to fight  the”SS” childsnatchers every step of the way !

Please give me a contact phone number from any country in the world no matter where you live. (MOBILES ARE OK !) and times available to receive a call. I will  then phone you back at my expense.(Use a public phone box if you do not wish to reveal your number). This site http://www.forced-adoption.com is full of information that is useful to help parents whose children have been taken.Maybe have a quick glance through before phoning.

For a speedy reply email me  ian@monaco.mc   Monday – Friday 9am-5pm  when possible!Other times are ok if really urgent,but My wife says “PLEASE LEAVE HIM ALONE ON SUNDAY so he can have one day with his family !!”  I will ring you  at my expense!(USUALLY THE SAME DAY).Please therefore leave your phone available and switched ON 9am-5pm or at least tell me to ring morning,afternoon or evening, because it is very frustrating for me to continually get voicemail  when I am trying to give you help and advice !ALWAYS add your phone number to your emails . I never note numbers because there are hundreds of them and the names cease to remind me of the facts of the cases.

My services are FREE .I will NEVER ask you for money!

Please use regular email to scan and send vital papers or letters   The only really important documents are those written by the judge so most of the rest of the rubbish in your files can be thrown away.For my replies, I type emails with one finger so in complicated cases I prefer where possible to telephone you as it takes a lot less time to advise you this way ! To send me details of your case in advance email me to ian@monaco.mc I do not accept attachments  unless agreed beforehand as they often contain viruses sent by those who dislike what I do .

If you have already emailed me and are “following up” please try and send your next email and all subsequent emails on the same long email so I can refresh my memory of the whole story with one easy read !

Please understand that when I do contact you by phone I shall have to question you in detail to find out exactly why the “SS” say you are not fit to be a parent. The only way I can properly defend you is to know all about their case.I will insist on” yes” or “no” answers to my questions and sometimes sound more like a prosecutor than a friend but believe me I will always be on your side, eager to defeat and frustrate the hated “SS” !

Also please do not try to contact me via skype, facebook,twitter,texts ,or any similar source .I usually manage to answer all emails or  within 24 hours and they alone keep me incredibly busy with no time to check for alternative ways of communication !!

If you send me details of your case in advance,please try to stick to simple facts,numbered 1,2,3,etc in date order, not opinions,.Tell me how many children you have ,how old they are,if the ss are threatening to remove your baby,child,or children,or when they were taken,and what reasons were given by the judge or magistrates or SS for removing them or threatening to remove them  ;Start with the PRESENT and what is happening now and then describe what the judge decided in the last court case (if there has been one);Don’t waste time going long into the past as it’s the present that counts and what you now wish to achieve that is really important!

Remember always that “adoption” is a wonderful,wonderful,thing if it is truly voluntary but it is a wicked, wicked crime if forced on parents desperate to keep their children .A punishment almost as bad as execution………

What then is forced adoption ?

“Adoption without consent” covers all cases where a baby or young child is adandoned,or parents cannot be found,or where parents who may have ill treated the child do not give consent but do not actively oppose adoption.

FORCED ADOPTION is the adoption of a baby or young child despite opposition from a parent or close family member expressed in the family courts.Generally speaking parents who batter their children or severely neglect them  do not go near a court if they can help it. The vast majority of parents who do go to court pleading to keep the child or children they love plead “We have done nothing wrong ,we have broken no laws we love our children and want to keep them,” but those children nevertheless do mostly go for adoption by strangers because of “risks” of future harm;risks that may never happen; ! That is FORCED ADOPTION……………….

When children are “in care” or given to one parent and forbidden to the other;how can any rational person deny even indirect contact with their kids to to either a mother or father forbidding letters,emails,or phone calls ,and put them in prison for sending a birthday card,or waving at their children as they pass in the street, or even posting happy 21st birthday on Facebook,( Yes I did say 21st !) or worst of all, 3 years jail for meeting at a petrol station…… Poor ,poor,UK .

Government figures tell us that the average cost of keeping a child in a “children’s home” is £2900 per week per child !! More than 3 times the cost of sending Prince Harry to Eton !!
The agencies that find Foster families and adoptive parents for Local Authorities are even more profitable ;One agency founded 15 years ago by two social workers was recently sold for £130 million+ as it was making more than £10million profit per year.
When will the public realise that the whole system is a scam quietly robbing the taxpayers under a veneerof respectability?

Child Stealing By The State: A Social Worker Speaks

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM

The text below beginning with “Stop punishment without crime” and finishing with my email address ian@monaco.mc can be used to form a one page pamphlet for distribution to the public: Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform  our  family courts and social services all on one page!

STOP PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME!

25,000+ children are removed every year from UK parents, most of whom have not committed any crimes and who are not addicted to alcohol or drugs. UK Parents are drastically punished  when their young children and newborn babies are removed for fostering by strangers (relatives are sometimes assessed but usually failed and ignored contrary to the Children Act 1989)  or forced adoption. Many are taken for ‘risk’ of future emotional harm;  yet an average of 10,000 children in ‘State care’ go missing every year (all party parliamentary group findings), surely a greater risk? Judgements published on Bailii prove that Judges rely heavily on hearsay (reports from absent witnesses) in family courts that, unlike criminal courts, are secret,do not allow trial by jury, refuse to admit relatives or allow parents to call witnesses, refuse a second expert opinion, quote parents’ previous offences committed 20+ years ago and often forbid parents to contact their own children. A mother, after reporting the father for sexual abuse, was disbelieved and jailed for 3 years for meeting her daughter against court orders. Another mother was jailed for sending a birthday card and a father jailed for waving at his children in care as they passed by in the street.Cases of child abuse or neglect should be dealt with by criminal courts where parents are presumed innocent of such offences unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

STOP GAGGING PARENTS & CHILDREN!

Babies are taken at birth for ‘RISK of emotional abuse’ (often from a long-departed or jailed ex-partner who was violent or who just shouted when angry). Young children are taken into care because of one unexplained bruise or fracture despite no previous history of injuries. Parents are judged on mere probabilities (51%) ‘guilty of abuse or neglect unless proved innocent’ and their children are fostered permanently or adopted. Parents are gagged in court by their own lawyers. They are jailed if they reveal their names when protesting in public and sometimes banned by court injunctions from ever discussing their cases with anyone at all! Children in care are also gagged and usually are not allowed to testify in court even when begging to do so. Laptops and mobiles are confiscated to isolate them from family and friends. At parents’ contact visits children in care are not allowed to discuss their cases, say they want to go home, complain of sexual or physical abuse by fosterers or social workers or even speak their own language if they are foreign. If they do any of these things contact is stopped.

ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION!

‘Forced Adoption’ = the adoption of children against the opposition of parents. After adoption, they are never told where their children are or even if they are alive or dead. Parents are punished for life, but since April (CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014) they can still apply for contact after adoption! In the UK adoption, if contested, must legally be a ‘last resort’, yet most other European countries manage without any forced adoptions, proving that other remedies are always possible. Adverts on the back of a bus offer fosterers £590/week per child, and the National Foster Agency, founded by two social workers a few years ago, was recently sold for £130million+! Children’s care homes cost an average £4,000/week per child and the whole system costs over £2 billion/year!

STOP TAKING THE ELDERLY FROM FAMILIES! 

Judges in the secret Court of Protection (highway robbery!) call tame psychiatrists to decide that old people (many of them perfectly lucid) lack ‘capacity’. Parents are separated from family and friends and forced into expensive private nursing homes. Partners and relatives are ejected from their dwellings then the properties are sold after the elderly persons’ bank accounts have been looted to fund social services, lawyers, courts and dubious care homes. Any person alleged to lack capacity should have the right to call their own medical expert to dispute the allegation and to testify in court to demonstrate capacity if they wish. They should be free to protest openly to the media and if found to have capacity,  should have the right to choose their own carers.

ian@monaco.mc.

http://www.forced-adoption.com

All facts and figures can be verified from government statistics or other official sources.

The text above beginning with “Stop punishment without crime”and finishing with my email address ian@monaco.mc can be used to form a one page pamphlet for distribution to the public: Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform  our  family courts and social services all on one page !

 The cost of residential care (dept of education)

Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk

 Using the data collected and approach adopted this year we estimate that the average cost of residential care provision per child per week is around £2,9001  

  ( SEE PAGE 4 “executive summary)

1. 1. . The average weekly cost for local authority provision and the average weekly spend on independent sector provision is comparable.

• The section 251 financial data collection administered by the Department and completed by all local authorities collects information on local authority annual spend on residential care.

Spend on residential care relates to residential homes and boarding schools.2

1. In 2012-13, authorities across England report spending a total of £997.2m on residential care. They report spend of £329.2m on their own provision, spend of £616.0m on private sector provision, spend of £8.2m on other local authority or health provision, and spend of £43.8m on voluntary sector provision.3
2. We can divide each authority’s total reported spend by their reports of usage of residential provision in order to gain insight into the average cost and the variation in the cost of this provision.

3. The depths of Britain’s ‘worst ever’ child care crisis

   • Christopher Booker
    

   24 September 2016 • 7:03pm

    
    

   

    

   In a statement that should have made us all sit up and take note, our top family judge, Lord Justice Munby, last week warned that social workers are now taking so many children into care that our “child protection” system is facing an unprecedented crisis. Since social workers’ failure to prevent the murder of “Baby P” became a major national scandal in 2008, the number of care applications has risen so fast that, by 2015, it had almost doubled, from an annual average of 6,532 to 12,781.

   But this year it has rocketed up again, by a further 26 per cent, to the point where, if it continues to rise at this rate, the annual figure could within three years, according to Munby, have “climbed to 25,000”: nearly four times its pre-Baby P level. Already, despite attempts to speed up the process, the courts are becoming hopelessly overstretched, and unless something dramatic is done, the whole system could be facing complete breakdown.

   Strangely, however, Munby went on to suggest that “the reasons for this are little understood”. In fact, as I have been reporting here for six years, one reason for this explosion in child-snatching is more obvious than any other; and Munby’s failure to recognise it on this occasion is particularly odd, because he himself has more than hinted at it in his own trenchant judgments as president of the Family Division since 2013.

   The only way this immense social disaster could be halted would be to ensure that social workers and the courts return to their proper role under the law, whereby they stop tearing families apart for no good reason

   This is that, in over-reacting to the Baby P fiasco, social workers have become astonishingly trigger-happy, removing far too many children from their parents for wholly inadequate reasons. And chilling light is shed on this by two more sets of statistics. The first, published by the NSPCC, shows what has happened under the four legal justifications for removing children from their families. Between 2006 and 2015, cases where children were taken into care for “neglect” rose by 88 per cent, in line with the overall trend. Despite the supposed increase in concern over “physical abuse” post-Baby P, these cases rose by only 20 per cent. Cases involving sexual abuse of children scarcely rose at all, from 2,300 to 2,340.

   But by far the largest increase, a staggering 278 per cent, has been in cases where it was alleged that parents were exposing their children to “emotional abuse”, a charge much more open to subjective interpretation than the others. And even this is misleading, because it makes no distinction between real emotional abuse, for which at least some evidence can be produced, and the much more speculative claim that children might be exposed to the mere “risk” of emotional abuse some time in the future.

   

    

   Since 2009 I have followed in detail literally hundreds of cases where children have been taken into care for what appeared to be questionable reasons. And in the vast majority of them, as where a mother has her baby snatched from her arms in the delivery ward, or loses her children simply because she herself had been in care (and is therefore deemed unfit to bring up a child of her own), the only excuse given for removing a child is that it might face the “risk” of emotional abuse. No need to show that such abuse has actually taken place. Simply a social worker’s opinion, far too often accepted by the courts, that this might happen in the hypothetical future.

   The other set of figures, produced by a University of Central Lancashire study based on Freedom of Information requests to 114 local councils, showed that, since Baby P, there has been a huge increase in the number of cases where social workers have intervened because of “concerns” raised by teachers, health visitors, doctors or members of the public that something suspicious might be going on, even if this may be only a small bruise on an arm or a neighbour overhearing a mother and father shouting at each other. Thanks to such “referrals”, according to the study, social workers investigated no fewer than one in five of all children born in 2009/10.   But again, many of the cases I have investigated over the years were set off like this, leading to tragic outcomes where social workers successfully based their case almost entirely on those initial ill-founded suspicions, without having to produce any further evidence to support them.

   If Sir James Munby really wants to avert the catastrophe he warned of on Tuesday, and to restore this horrifically corrupted system to some semblance of justice, humanity and common sense – as he has shown many signs of wishing to do – he has no alternative but to identify this major cause of the problem.

   The only way this immense social disaster could be halted would be to ensure that social workers and the courts return to their proper role under the law, whereby they stop tearing families apart for no good reason and concentrate just on those families where their intervention is genuinely justified.

   When a bath is dangerously overflowing, the first thing one needs to do is turn off the tap.

4.  
5.  

6. Care applications in January 2017

   January 2017 statistics from Cafcass

    

   In January 2017, Cafcass received a total of 1,119 care applications.  This figure represents a 7% increase compared with those received in January 2016.

   April 2015 – March 2016 

   • Between April 2015 and March 2016 Cafcass received a total of 12,791 applications.
   • This figure is 15% higher when compared with the previous financial year.

   April 2014 – March 2015

   • Between April 2014 and March 2015 Cafcass received a total of 11,159 applications.
   • This figure is 5% higher when compared with the same period in the previous financial year.

   April 2013 – March 2014

   • During 2013 – 2014, Cafcass received 10,620 new applications.  This figure is 4% higher when compared with the previous financial year.

   Please click here to view a spreadsheet, which, in addition to the monthly national stats, has a tab displaying a breakdown of application and children numbers by local authority for each complete quarter from April 2012 .

   

    

   	Care applications received
   	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	2016-17
   Apr	757	919	806	956	1,226
   May	984	983	873	924	1,160
   Jun	809	853	880	1,115	1,281
   Jul	996	877	1,022	1,123	1,305
   Aug	987	828	903	941	1,260
   Sep	879	843	913	985	1,229
   Oct	957	978	1,010	1,090	1,152
   Nov	958	825	890	1,036	1,283
   Dec	864	815	932	1,103	1,080
   Jan	976	889	893	1,045	1,119
   Feb	1,006	891	967	1,239
   Mar	937	919	1,070	1,234
   Total	11,110	10,620	11,159	12,781	12,095

Education & Family

News story

Adoption target met

by Hammersmith and Fulham Press Office 10/03/2008
101 children adopted in the last three years

More than 100 children have been adopted in the borough during the last three years, after the Council met a target from central Government target that many experts thought would be unachievable.

The Government target, known as a Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA), challenged the Council to successfully achieve 101 adoptions or secure placements during the last three year period in return for £500,000 of funding.

At the time, the Council felt that the bar was set too high, as in the previous three year period only 71 children had been adopted – a figure that was then considered to be very high.

However, H&F’s adoption team swung into action and pulled out all of the stops in order to meet the target.

Local authorities to have scorecards for adoption – BBC News

Adoption scorecards and thresholds published

1. 

    

Ministry of justice :- Official Judicial statistics

In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused. What chance did those parents have as (to quote L.J.Thorpe) “parents are so prejudiced in proceedings” ??

NSPCC figures above show that the “baby P factor” is a myth ! Children subject to a child protection plan were over a 5year period as follows:-  Physical abuse+sexual abuse 2009=6400 but 2013=6700 an increase of only4.6% but emotional abuse 2009=9100 and 2013=13640 an increase of 49.8% !! More than double the numbers of physical and sexual abuse combined ! This goes to show that the “SS” have not increased numbers because of baby p and fears of physical or sexual abuse but have nearly doubled those they claim to have been emotionally abused because nobody can properly defend themselves against such an accusation. EASY MEAT………….

OPEN JUSTICE

“Open up the courts “they shout ! Let the public in……. But of course members of the public are unlikely to bother to go.That is NOT the real issue……..
No the real issue is the gagging of parents preventing them from crying to the rooftops when their children are taken identifying themselves and their kids if they wish to do so ,and also the refusal to allow friends ,grandparents and other relatives in the court if the parents wish them to be there.
Freedom of speech is a joke where family courts are concerned and so is justice that cannot be seen to be done even by children’s grandparents or the mother’s new Partner  on the laughable pretext that a newborn baby’s privacy has been breached !
If we believe in free speech and open justice we should allow parents to speak freely to the public naming themselves and their children, and also allow them to invite relatives and friends into court for moral support.

___________

Click on the links to watch the BBC and ITV documentaries if you missed them earlier !

1Watch the BBC film   ‘Families flee UK to avoid forced adoption’. Inside Out was broadcast on BBC One South East on Monday, 6 October 2014. Rachel Royce reports.!
Here’s the link to share this: https://forced-adoption.com/#insideout.

2 Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1N9r2Vieg

See the programme below on Channel 4 Newshttp://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

2. . https://youtu.be/XLU66WvINSA is the link to a 49 minute video called “Russia today” exposing OUR social services and forced adoption!
3. Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform our family courts and social services all on one page !
4. Click here for Kidnap of children from their mother by Dutch social services Using Fraud power abuse – YouTube
5. See more examples of “punishment without crime” and “forced adoption” inflicted on loving parents and their children by UK social services and please tell others of this site http://www.forced-adoption.com .
6.  http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Kuki-Keaton/dp/B00SCD6DMQ/ref=sr_1_25?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1421591488&sr=1-25&keywords=traffic+dvdThe above is a link  for you to obtain the latest film “TRAFFIC” made by parents of stolen children !
7. Forced Adoption UK: https://youtu.be/a7TcFWqKja8  A Russian documentary made in English about the injustices of forced adoption in the UK.The uk authorities applied successfully to have this film banned on all official sites !
   

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uApuCE07HJE&feature=youtu.be

   Above is a link to a video of two pregnant mums I helped escape to France where the authorities welcomed them !

READ ALOUD IN COURT THESE WISE STATEMENTS BY  VERY SENIOR JUDGES !

1:-Note the observation of Supreme Court Judge Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC (para 143):“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs

.2:-Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B: ‘

. Maggie Mellon who is the Deputy Chair of the British Association of Social Workers  said:

(https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/9-family-debate-transcript.pdf)

“The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent.  That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that?”

Sir james Munby (President of the family courts) also said at the Family Justice Council debate  “The only thing I am confident about is that adoption as we will understand it and practise it in 30 years’ time will bear very little relation to adoption as we practise it today. “

Also at a speech made to the Society of Editors Sir James stated ..”.with the state’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are  typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in  any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make. When a family judge makes an adoption order in relation to a twenty‐year old mother’s baby, the mother will have to live with the consequences of that decision for what may be upwards of 60 or even 70 years, and the baby for what may be upwards of 80 or even 90 years. We must be vigilant to guard against the risks.”

3:-MR JUSTICE MOSTYN said”PARA 35. The proposition of the merits of adoption is advanced almost as a truism but if it is a truism it is interesting to speculate why only three out of 28 European Union countries allow forced or non-consensual adoption. One might ask: why are we so out of step with the rest of Europe? One might have thought if it was obvious that forced adoption was the gold standard the rest of Europe would have hastened to have adopted it. The relevance of this aspect of the case is surely obvious.”

2. Link – http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/3388.htm

4:-I also  remind readers of the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions) [2007] 1 FLR 2050:“Many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or ‘model’ them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.”

5:-Lord Templeman inRe KD 1988:

The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature

22

 

by Maggie Mellon, BASW Vice Chair (British Association of Social Workers)

I believe that suspicion of parents and of families has become corrosive, and is distorting the values of our profession.

For the last 20 plus years the number of investigations or assessments into families suspected of child abuse has climbed steadily upwards and now accounts for one in 20 families in England and Wales

A recent analysis found that since the Children Act 1989 referrals have increased by 311%, from 160,000 per year to 657,800 per year, between 1991 and 2014.

Assessments have increased by 302% over the same period, from 120,000 to 483,800, while the number of cases of ‘core abuse’ have fallen. The figures show that the ratio of referrals to registrations have fallen year on year from 24.1% to 7.3%.

Child protection dominates work

These assessments will have been carried out mainly by social workers. For social workers in statutory children and family teams there is no doubt that ‘child protection’ dominates every aspect of their work. Despite there being no significant rise in the number of children who die as a result of parental abuse or neglect, risk of abuse is assumed to be high.

What does this say about how social workers view parents and families? And, just as importantly, what must it tell us about how parents view contact with social services? I believe that the evidence is mounting of mutual distrust and fear.

2. WHAT OTHER JUDGES SAY :-

   1: Lord Justice Thorpe said There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.

   2: Lord Justice Wall (the former Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.

   3: In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West

The podcast and transcript from the Debate that was held on 24 November is now on the Family Justice Council website. Please see the link below.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/advisory-bodies/fjc/conference-debates/debates/family-justice-council-9th-annual-debate/

TEN  QUESTIONS TO ASK FAMILY COURT JUDGES;

1: – Great Britain is the only country in the world where substantial numbers of pregnant women seek asylum in other countries to have their babies safe from UK social services and forced adoption. Yes British mothers are fleeing the country in ever increasing numbers to avoid the adoption of their unborn babies babies.Surely this shows something is very badly wrong?

2 :- Adoption without consent is a last resort when nothing else will do say the legal guidelines but this cannot be true ,since many other countries such as France manage to find other” resorts “and thus never need to use this so called last resort, so why cannot the UK adopt the same remedies as the French for example?

3:-The President of the family Courts in Re J(a child) said that since the abolition of capital punishment the most drastic decision any judge could make was to take a child from its parents.If a sane mother with no criminal record has her baby removed surely she is punished without breaking any laws .Surely punishment without crime is as illogical as it is wrong?

4:-Many babies and young children are taken at birth for eventual adoption from mothers diagnosed with “borderline personalities” and similar mental failings by court appointed experts;Unlike defendants in criminal courts parents in family courts are not allowed to get a second opinion  from a private medical source to call as their witness without permission from the judge;Surely that is a violation of Article 6(Human rights Act) giving persons appearing in  court the right to call witnesses in determination of their civil rights?

5:-Research has shown that Open Adoptions have better results for children than the Closed adoptions used in the UK that break all contact with birth families;If parents were promised at least one annual contact by court order (birthdays or Xmas perhaps?) thus avoiding the heartbreak of no contact at all (letter box being remote and seldom continued) many parents would not go through the agony of contested hearings so would not this be a good thing?

6:- Many babies are taken at birth for “risk of emotional abuse” .Something unique in Europe and impossible for parents to defend against court experts who are usually judged more likely on probabilities to be correct than a distraught mother.When adoption follows due to risks that may never happen( from an ex partner who was violent for example) surely these at least are cases where forced adoptions should simply not be allowed ?

7:-Article 10 (Human rights Act) reinforces our democratic right to free speech.Surely it is a gross violation of  to gag mothers whose children have been taken (for possible adoption) by preventing them under threat of jail from identifying themselves and their children when protesting to the media .Similarly is it not also a violation of Article 10 to gag both children in care and parents during “contact sessions” preventing them from speaking their own language (if of foreign extraction), reporting abuse or injuries received in care,discussing their cases, whispering ,or discussing adoptions,,under threat that contact will be immediately stopped if parents or children break these rules?

8-:In many cases parents who have committed no crimes are forbidden by the family courts to contact their own children directly or even indirectly by email etc.Surely that must be flagrant violation of Article 10 allowing free association when parents are as a consequence  jailed for breaching the order by sending a birthday card or waving at their own children in the street?

9:- Social workers and judges in family courts continually emphasise the need to keep the names of children whose cases are before the court confidential  to protect the children’s  privacy.Parents or others who breach that secrecy are jailed. There is however one exception;namely the “adoption industry” .When the family courts decide that forced adoption is the solution for children all thoughts of privacy go out of the window.Children with first names ,photographs and character descriptions are advertised like pedigree dogs for potential adoptive parents to select the children they want. Surely these double standards are utterly hypocritical?

10:-They say money makes the world go round and this certainly seems true of the fostering and adoption industry. A poster on a bus in Suffolk offers £590/week per child to anyone willing to Foster .Very nice work if you foster 3 or more children  andp to £1000/week if a child has “special needs . Special schools rake in£3000 to£4000 per week per child ,around 5 times the fees at Eton ! Agencies do best of all getting £27,000 for each successful adoption arranged . One of many agencies is The National fostering and adoption agency  founded by two social workers about 15 years ago and sold out last year for £130million+ ! Nice work if you can get it Thousands of others of course just make a good living out of the misery of others  and rigorously defend the system on which they depend .Birds of a Feather flock together with no need for conspiracy but surely we should put and end to this money racket that causes so much unhappiness to the children robbed of the parents they love and the mothers robbed for life of their newborn babies?

In the matter of A (A Child) v Darlington Borough Council and (1) M (2) F (3) GM and GF and (4) A (by his children’s guardian) [2015] EWFC 11 (“Re A”) – read judgment

In a scathing judgment, the president of the Family Division has condemned as “social engineering” a local authority’s application to remove a baby boy permanently from the care of his father and place him for adoption.

The case was, he said,

an object lesson in, almost textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.

In addressing these failings, Munby P identified “three fundamentally important points”.

The first point, vital for practitioners on the ground, is that findings of fact must be based on evidence, not suspicion and speculation. As the judge observed, material in local authority files is often second or third-hand hearsay. Although hearsay is admissible in care proceedings, if challenged, a local authority will have to establish its accuracy.

In this case, the original social worker’s “concerns” about the father were repeated and adopted by other practitioners (including the children’s guardian), without further enquiry. When the case reached court, that enquiry revealed what Sir James described witheringly as

a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations.

Stripped of suspicion, speculation and hyperbole, the majority of the factual case collapsed and was reduced to familiar assertions that the parent “lacks honesty with professionals” or “minimises matters of importance”.

The second fundamental point is that a successful application for a care order must link the facts relied on to the threshold test, i.e., why do the facts asserted lead to the conclusion that the child is at risk of suffering significant harm?

In this case, the local authority thus had to show how the fact that the father had had sex with an underage girl of 13 when he was aged 17, affected his ability to care for his baby son some six years later. How did the social worker’s complaint that he “failed to acknowledge the immoral nature of the offences committed” support the assessment that his child was at risk of neglect?

The judge was equally unimpressed by the local authority’s “concern” about the father’s involvement with the English Defence League (EDL) – referred to in the social worker’s assessment as “a barbaric protestor group”. The fact (“if fact it be”) that the father was a member of the EDL (“probably only for a short time”) was, he said,

neither here nor there, whatever one may think of its beliefs or policies.

The social worker’s repeated reference to the “immoral aspects of the father’s behaviour”, prompted the judge’s third fundamental point that, in the “wise and powerful words” of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent…some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.

In the same vein, as Baroness Hale explained in the celebrated Supreme Court decision In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33:

We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the state does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical and mental illnesses or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.

In this case, local authority concerns also included an alleged “history of drug abuse”. Once probed, the evidence established the father “may have taken cannabis on occasions”. However Sir James observed,

the reality is that many parents smoke cannabis on occasions without their children coming to harm… [P]arental abuse of alcohol or drugs of itself and without more is no basis for taking children into care.

On the positive side, the father was recognised to love the child, to be capable of meeting his day-to-day needs and to have shown commitment in supervised contact. Taking account of the “greatly weakened” local authority case and “surveying the wide canvass”, the judge concluded

The judge says “I can accept that the father may not be the best of parents, he may be less than a suitable role model, but that is not enough to justify a care order, let alone adoption.”

It boils down to three important principles as elaborated in the case above by Sir James Munby (President of the family courts) and summarised by myself

I SUMMARISE HIS JUDGEMENT AS FOLLOWS :-It boils down to three important principles :-

1:- Hearsay if contradicted and challenged by a parent in person must be backed up by factual evidence from the L.A and cannot by itself justify a care order.

2:- Even if the allegations against parents are established the local authority must prove that they have caused or will probably cause significant harm to the child or children concerned.

3:-If the lifestyles of the parents are unconventional or immoral or punctuated by occasional noisy domestic spats and episodes of drunkenness those things alone do not justify a care order.

 

TWELVE REFORMS THAT WOULD END THE INJUSTICES:-

1:-NO child should be taken from law abiding citizens ;There should be no punishment without crime ! If a parent is charged with a serious crime the child should be removed but returned if a not guilty verdict is given by the jury..

2:- Forced adoption should be abolished. Definition:- Adoption that is forced on parents who oppose it in court asking to keep their children Most parents who love their children enough to go through months of gruelling court appearances would probably deserve to keep them.

3:- No gagging orders should be placed on parents who must be allowed to protest to the media using their own names when their children are taken .

4:-Parents should be permitted to have a limited number of friends and relatives to support them and to observe their processes in the family court;

5:- No restrictions should be placed on conversations between parents and children at contact and children should be free to report abuse by carers.Freedom of Speech is paramount:-

6:- Parents who have not committed crimes against children should never be forbidden to contact their children by email ,phone,or letter. I repeat that.children in care should no longer be gagged to stop them reportng to parents abuse in fostercare .They should never have their phones and laptops confiscated. They should be free to discuss whatever they like with parents during contact visits ,speaking their own language even if that language is not English !

7:- Parents who are suspected of having mental problems or learning difficulties but who deny having them should be able to consult their own experts and bring them to court with any other relevant witnesses they choose.

8:-Parents should be free to bring their own expert witnesses to testify concerning injuries that may or may not have been non accidental

9:- Children who cannot live with parents should be placed with relatives as the Children Act 1989 specifies. Too many grand parents and other close relatives are wrongly disqualified because they have a close Relationship with one of the parents,because they are “too old” at 55 or even less ,or because they are deemed to be unable to protect the child from a violent parent when eventually he/she comes out of jail!. These are lame excuses for taking children into care and splitting up brothers from sisters etc rather than keeping siblings together with family members

10:-Parents must be allowed to call their own children to court to testify for them especially if they are eager to do so.-As former minister for justice Simon Hughes said “children of age 10+ should be free to come to court IF THEY WISH TO TESTIFY on their parent’s behalf” The United Nations convention on children’s rights confirms all this.

11:- Family courts should pronounce all persons before them innocent of accusations and allegations unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.They should never judge any person to be at fault on the balance of probabilities (51%+)

12:-Domestic violence confined to shouting should not result in confiscation of children .Victims of partners who have actually been convicted of domestic violence should never be penalised by removal of their children as long as they have separated from the perpetrator and taken all possible measures to protect their children from future violence by that person

12 QUESTIONS THAT YOU CAN PUT TO YOUR LOCAL AUTHORITY !

1 :- Can it ever be right to take thousands of babies at birth  from sane law abiding mothers for « risk of emotional abuse” ? If so when?

2:-Research shows that Open Adoption works better than Closed so why do British Family Courts never permit Open adoptions that could allow children at least some contact with birth parents?

3:- Why are law abiding citizens in UK deprived of their children for risk of things that may never happen?Surely babies should only be taken from those who break the laws not those who keep them?

4:- ,Only from UK do hundreds of pregnant mothers flee to Ireland,France,Spain,and N.Cyprus etc to give birth in safety from UK Social Services ;Surely this mass flight of pregnant mothers that happens nowhere else in the world indicates that something is badly wrong?

5:- When UK mothers do flee to other countries  to give birth or to avoid UK Court proceedings for care orders on their children; why do Social Services pursue them and take proceedings in those other countries to retrieve the children for care in UK instead of leaving the foreign local social services  in Ireland, France etc to deal with the situation?

6:-When children are taken into care in UK their lap tops and mobile phones are usually immediately confiscated so that they cannot phone or email family or friends unlike murderers in prison who can do both.How can this limitation on childrens freedom to communicate be right?

7:-When children in care see their parents at contact centres they and their parents are forbidden (if foreign) to speak their own language, to cry,to discuss their case,to report abuse in care ,or to discuss returning home.;unlike murderers in prison who can discuss anything they like with their visitors. How can crushing freedom of speech be right?

8:- Why do squads of 5 or 6  uniformed police arrive so frequently to take screaming frightened children from parents at around 7am from their beds and cart them off to isolation from family and friends?

9:- The number of children taken from parents for physical or sexual abuse has dropped whilst the numbers taken for undefined emotional abuse has nearly doubled in the last five years as a percentage of the whole (judicial statistics).Could that be because children sexually or physically abused make poor adoption material?

10:-Can it be right that social workers who all have adoption scorecards are named and shamed within their own organisations if they do not achieve adoption targets? Surely this gives them an incentive to recommend forced adoptions when other solutions are possible and more desirable?

11: Innocent until proved guilty” has been replaced in the UK family courts by “guilty if their guilt (smacking or injuring their child etc) is more probable (51%) than their innocence”; and as judges usually consider the allegations of social workers to be probably more reliable than the denials of parents the result is that parents once accused are usually found to have neglected or abused their own children.-Surely “innocent until proven guilty” is a fairer standard of proof?

12:-There are many cases in the UK where law abiding parents have been imprisoned for breaching “no contact orders” made by the family courts by waving at their children in the street, sending a birthday card, speaking to them at a chance meeting and even for posting “happy 21^st birthday” on the internet.(yes 21^st !).Surely such orders should be made illegal when such parents have never been convicted of harming their children?

Children in Care,Family Courts, and Forced Adoption are unecessary modern  inventions !

The proof that social workers take children from parents via family courts  when it is not in the best interests of the child is simple. Over 100,000 children are officially “in care” in the UK following alleged neglect ,abuse,or risk of harm from parents .

This was not the case at all in the 1950s and 60s when children were taken en masse because they were “illegitimate” (born  to unmarried mothers) .Social workers and the family courts were not yet a power in the land.Very few children were then taken for being at risk of harm or similar reasons. When however fashions changed and it was no longer considered a disgrace for unmarried mothers to have a child a yawning gap appeared in the child snatching industry and that gap was filled by inventing reasons for taking children such as” risk ” or “putting the parent’s needs before those of children”Hence the 100,000 babies and young children now in care (and many selected for forced adoption), who were never taken before because in the old days the excuse of illegitimacy was enough to keep the “industry” flourishing and forced adoption did not need to  exist.

3 cardinal freedoms vital to a democracy are gradually being discarded in the UK;

1:- “Innocent until proved guilty” has been replaced in the family courts by “guilty if their guilt is more probable (51%) than their innocence”; and as judges always consider the allegations of social workers to be probably more reliable than the denials of parents the result is that parents once accused are usually found to have neglected or abused their own children.One consequence is that hundreds of pregnant mothers flee UK for Ireland ,France,N.Cyprus etc to stop their babies being seized at birth by the “SS” for risk of emotional abuse !The UK IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD where pregnant mothers continuously flee the country to save their newborn babies !

2:-” Freedom of Speech” has been completely discarded in the family courts and been replaced by gagging orders on parents who have had their children removed and also on those same children who are forbidden to tell their parents at contact of the shocking sexual and physical abuse they receive in fostercare or in “children’s homes”;Parents who see their children at contact are forbidden to show emotion,to discuss their case or to say they miss their children and want them back home.Murderers ,rapists,and even serial killers in jail are allowed to phone out to their families and to discuss their cases and anything else they like with visitors .Children in care aged around 5-12 are routinely denied these same rights so they are treated worse than the most violent criminals even though they have done nothing wrong at all !
I myself acted as a Mckenzie friend in one case helping a parent forbidden to contact her only child.As a consequence I have been given a lifetime ban from speaking to anyone about that case ever again otherwise I will be immediately jailed !

3:-“Freedom of movement and communication” has also been partially discarded so that we have seen parents (who have previously never been convicted of any crime) jailed for sending a birthday card or waving to their children as they passed by in the Streets.Breaching a court order that mothers ljke “vicky haigh” (whose name I can mention because her case was raised in parliament) must never comunicate by letter,email,fax,or telepone and certainly never meet face to face with their own children because a court has ordered them not to do so.Why? Because judges found it more likely than not that mothers coached their daughters to make allégations of sexual abuse against their own fathers;Even if true,the cutting of even indirect contact punishes the child even more than the mother..
Baby P’s mother was of course allowed to see her surviving kids in jail and has now been released and given a new private identity at huge public expense thanks to her excellent relations with social workers…You see she was politicallycorrect………………

RISK:- The “SS” and family court judges  continually refer to  the risk to children of future physical or emotional (their favourite !) abuse as a reason to take babies and young children from their parents and put them into care with a view to adoption by strangers.Apart from healthy scepticism that these “worthies” can predict the future,the worrying thing is that one of the very greatest risks a child can run is to be put into care! Government statistics reveal that nearly half the prostitutes on the Streets were in care at one time,nearly half British born prisoners in jails were in care in their youth,and although there are no official stats it is common knowledge that most Young girls who have grown up in care are pregnant when they leave. aged only 16……

In addition the psychological damage of forced separation from the parents they love (often by squads of uniformed police) is often horrific as the link to the article below shows.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/lesleygarnerlifeclass/3541393/Lesley-Garners-Lifeclass-Ive-never-got-over-being-put-into-care.html

Contact with children in care.

See how they break the law by censoring what a mother can say to a 12 year old child! Most parents have to sign something similar or contact is stopped !

Supervised contact

Supervised contact will take place three times a week. Currently there are two regular sessions on Tuesdays and Fridays, between 3;30 and 4;45pmLukes Social Worker will make arrangements on a weekly basis in regards to the third supervised session until a contact supervisor can be allocated.

Contact between Luke and his mum wll be supervised by a contact supervisor at all times. The contact sessions will take place at the West Area Duty and Family Support Teams offices.

Telephone contact is to take place only under Lukes foster carers supervision.Telephone contact is to only last five minutes and is to be initiated by Luke only.

Ms Marques is expected to end the telephone conversation herself in an appropriate way once the five minutes have lapsed.

Luke will be transported from school and to the foster placement by a professional appointed by the West Area Duty and Family Support Team.

Ms Marques is expected to support Luke while he is staying with his foster carer.

She is not to encourage Luke to have any other form of contact with her apart from what has been officially agreed with the Local Authority. The Local Authority is worried that ms Marques has limited insight into how her functioning impacts upon Luke and that there is a risk that Lukes placement will be de-stabilised and Luke experience further emotional harm as a result of this.

Ms Marques is strongly advised ; to engage with Luke in a child centered positive way during contact. If she finds this difficult she is encouraged to request support/advice from the contact supervisor.

The contact supervisor will from now on make activities available during contact. Ms Marques is advised to engage with these activities and encourage Luke to do so aswell.

Ms Marques is encouraged to bring board games with her etc that she and Luke might enjoy playing during contact.

Ms Marques should not discuss issues relating to the ongoing court proceedings. If in any case Luke brings up the subject himself she is to encourage him to discuss these issues with his social worker and/or guardian.

Ms Marques should not make reference to herself and her current situation if this will result in Luke feeling worried/guilty about ” mum being on her own”.

Ms Marques is to make reference to Lukes father and paternal side of the family in a positive way at all times.

Ms Marques is expected to make reference to all professionals involved with Luke in a positive way.She is to encourage Luke to be open and trusting of these professionals.

If Ms Marques feels anxious/unwell she is expected to seek help from her GP and /or her mental health key-worker. Lukes social worker is to be notified of this as soon as that is possible. If in any case contact is to be affected, then Ms Marques is expected to make contact with Lukes social worker immediately.

Ms M is expected to keep to all the points made in this written agreement.

If Ms Marques fails to keep to any of the expectations as set out by this written agreement; it is made clear that the contact supervisor has been instructed that contact is to be stopped, and Ms Marques will be asked to leave.

The Local Authority will also review the contact arrangements and amend them as necessary to promote and ensure Lukes welfare and safety.

This is not a legally binding document and all relevant parties are encouraged to seek legal advise if they wish to do so.

Any changes to contact will take place only once an updated written agreement has been drafted and signed by all relevant parties.

———–

OUR OBJECTIVES

Our main objectives must be to persuade the UK government to abolish “FORCED ADOPTION” and stop “PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME”. We have laws in the UK and those who break the laws are rightly punished. Unfortunately those who do NOT break the law are also punished and that makes the whole idea of the law absurd ! This applies especially to mothers whose babies are taken away at birth for “risk of emotional abuse” and later adopted by strangers ; Sir James Munby President of the family courts recently described the removal of children from families  as the most drastic matter handled by the courts since the abolition of capital punishment (hanging). Child cruelty should be the business of the police and the criminal courts; in which case all parents would be presumed innocent of child abuse or neglect unless charged with such an offence and subsequently found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a JURY (If longterm separation of child from parent is a possibility)

FORCED ADOPTION

1:- Forced adoption is the removal of a child from its parents without their consent and usually against their will.Systematic forced adoption pursued as a government priority is unique to the UK. EU countries manage without it therefore it is not as claimed a “last resort”

2:-The result is that the parents lose all contact with the child usually for the rest of its life and never know if it is alive or dead.

3:- This can happen to parents who have never been convicted of any crime because they are thought to pose a risk to a child in the future

4:-Mothers frequently have their babies removed at birth for “risk of emotional abuse” .A prediction difficult for anyone to disprove.

5:- This also happens to citizens of the EU when visiting the UK so that their children are forcibly adopted by persons speaking a different language and living a completely different culture and a different religion even when these parents have committed no criminal offence.

6:- This also happens to UK citizens visiting other EU countries where they give birth but are subsequently pursued by the British authorities who make care orders after the departure and persuade the foreign court to allow them to take the baby to the UK for forced adoption .

7:- Forced adoption violates the human rights act article 8 to a private family life undisturbed by public authority and also threatens the basic EU principle of “freedom of movement “ If EU visitors to UK who have committed no crimes risk having their children forcibly adopted.

8:- The solution to this problem would be for the EU authorities to ban on human rights grounds the adoption of children in EU States without the consent of parents( especially foreign visitors) who have not committed any crime that could compromise the interests of their children .

CAN YOU TELL OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN BEING SNATCHED??

Do not be bluffed by social workers or even your own useless solicitors! If they say that 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 !!

You can access the actual texts of the new rules as passed by parliament as follows;-

Statutory Instruments

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/pd_part_12g

See also Section 62: Publication of material relating to legal proceedings

The Children Act 2004 para 251.     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 .

I want every parent, aunt, uncle, grandparent, and whoever else to email every local and national newspaper to let them know what is going on in the UK family court and how the social services and Cafcass are conducting themselves.

To do this, all you need to do is use The UK Newspaper Megaphone where you can mass email the media and get them to report of what is happening in the family courts

Abusive parents rarely go to court to fight for the return of their children

Surely you may say there are abusive parents so why take their side? The answer is two fold :- Firstly most abusive parents do not go to court and fight to get their children back They stay well away from courts and judges !.Secondly I am not a judge ,I just help and advise any parent who asks me in the same way as a criminal lawyer will defend clients without judging whether they are guily or innocent.

Practice Direction: Committal for Contempt of Court – Open Court

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has today issued a Practice Direction governing the process of hearings for committal to prison, including suspended committal, for contempt of court (link below and copy in body of email). This Direction must be complied with and replaces 2013 guidance which was aimed at the Family Court and Court of Protection, extending it to all civil, family and criminal proceedings. The Directions says: ‘Open justice is a fundamental principle. The general rule is that hearings are carried out in, and judgments and orders are made in, public. This rule applies to all hearings, whether on application or otherwise, for committal for contempt irrespective of the court in which they are heard or of the proceedings in which they arise.’ It requires in all cases where an individual is found to have committed a contempt of court and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or a suspended term of imprisonment that the court making the order must, sitting in public, set out the following: the name of the person; the nature of the sentence; and, in general terms, the nature of the contempt. It also requires these details and a written judgment to be provided to the press and the Judicial Office website. It does so in order to ensure that no one is committed prison without these details being made public. This Direction is made by the Lord Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, following consultation with the Master of the Rolls, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, President of the Family Division and of the Court of Protection, and Chancellor of the High Court.

Link: bit.ly/1NhjEPD

WHO AM I ?  You may well ask…..

Who are you dealing with? and  What do I do? You may wish to know……..

I am not a solicitor or barrister but I do have a law degree from Oxford University.I  am a business man owning and running two language teaching companies :- http://www.hli.co.uk   and http://www.regencyschool.com (See for yourself!)

I was born in London in 1932,I now live in Monaco, and have been happily married to my second wife( who is french) since 1971 ,I have 7 children and 11 grandchildren .I still ski,(badly!) and work harder now than when I was 20!

Unlike most who fight them,I and my family have NEVER been troubled personally by UK social services even when we lived in Kent .Eventually ,we left UK to live and work in Monaco in 1984.However I always detested the arrogant brutality that UK social services showed to those least able to defend themselves.

It all began in 1962. I was on Kent County Council and was asked for help by a mother whose son had, she said had been wrongly taken from her by social workers and put in a very expensive private school (owned by a senior Kent Councillor)where he was paid to sleep with teachers !The authorities tried to “hush the matter up” but after a widely publicised court hearing the boy was  successfuly returned home and I was asked by other parents to deal with similar problems .I therefore applied in the courts for discharge of care orders against my own council for many such parents and never lost a case.

Unfortunately I spent so much time on these cases that my language school deteriorated and my first marriage broke up when my first wife departed leaving me with two young children and a fading business to take care of  ! I then stopped helping parents and concentrated on my business and my second marriage . Both proved successful ! (Happily married since 1971 with Danielle and 5 children together!)

It was in 2003 that the Meadows cot death scandals and adoptions without parental consent exploded into the news and I wrote to the Daily Mail saying things seemed worse in 2003 than they were in the 60s when I was helping parents. I got nearly 50 letters from desperate parents.The law had changed so that I could no longer speak for parents in court,there was also forced adoption, court secrecy,and gagging orders, so I set up my site  http://www.forced-adoption.com and have been dealing with more than 1000 cases per year ever since ! Ihave  financially assisted 50 or 60  pregnant women to escape legally to Ireland France and other places to avoid losing their babies at birth to forced adoption.

————–

Click on the link below to watch Ian Josephs speaking at the Children Screaming To Be Heard conference in London July 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jtLKpwRTF9k#t=223

Remember also that if the “SS” take your child without a court order and without your consent they are acting illegally and can be punished !

ILLEGAL CHILD REMOVAL

In R (on the application of G) v Nottingham City Council [2008] EWHC 400 (Admin) Munby J considered removal of a child from a mother without either court order or consent under s.20 of the CA 1989.  In finding that removal to be unlawful the Court relied on Article 8 of the HRA and concluded that the interference with the family life was not justifiable under Article 8(2) as a result

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2675395/Judge-blasts-social-workers-telling-not-law-remove-nine-year-old-family-away-without-consent.html

Yes, the punishment dealt out to parents by family courts is far more severe than anything the criminal courts can do ;yet the evidence needed is only the “balance of probabilities”(51+%) instead of “beyond reasonable doubt” .This must be very wrong !

Speech by Sir James Munby (president of the family courts) to the Society of editors:- “I have said this many times in the past but it must never be forgotten that, with the state’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make. When a family judge makes an adoption order in relation to a twenty-year old mother’s baby, the mother will have to live with the consequences of that decision for what may be upwards of 60 or even 70 years, and the baby for what may be upwards of 80 or even 90 years. We must be vigilant to guard against the risk”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413373/Top-judges-war-secret-courts-Family-hearings-exposed-glare-publicity.html#ixzz3BLgYgmef Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Yes the sad thing is that social workers were formed to support families and should be welcome callers at any family home.Alas they are now the most hated and feared profession in the UK.A knock on the door from social workers puts fear and dread into the hearts of almost any parent answering it;”Have they come to take our children?” is the first thought of any parent when social workers first come round…………..No such parent would think that a social worker had come to reunite a family in danger of breaking up because they just do not do that anymore.They force couples to separate by threatening to take their children if they refuse to do so ;then when the mothers are all on their own,  they take the children anyway

THE MOST FREQUENT REASONS FOR CHILD REMOVAL FROM PARENTS (INCLUDING BABIES AT BIRTH !)

1:- Domestic Violence  even when restricted to shouting and even when the violent parent separated years agoThe theory is that if children see their parents argue and (God forbid!) shout at each other they will suffer significant EMOTIONAL ABUSE and should be taken away to the illusory safety of the extremely dangerous State care system! .If this rule was applied in Italy there would be no parents left with children at all !Even in the UK ,show me a couple who have been together 3 years or more who claim they never quarrel or shout at each other and I will show you two liars !

2:- Borderline personality disorder or narcissistic traits ! Usually diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist who  habitually gives evidence to the family courts in favour of social services and with few if any private patients.Parents are routinely refused a second opinion and if they get a highly favourable report from a top expert  paying privately it is usually ignored even when it is more up to date .

3:- Hostility and refusal to engage or work with professionals.It is however difficult to work with persons who tell you their intention is to take your newborn baby or young children and give them to strangers for adoption !

4:-A parent who was abused in childhood or who was brought up “in care”  is often deemed to be an unfit parent because of the danger that they had no parents in care and learned nothing of parenthood or that they would in turn repeat the abuse they had suffered as a child by abusing their own children !

5:- A father (and sometimes a mother) with a  criminal record of violence that was against other adults but never against their partner or their children is still judged too much of a danger to care for children even if the offences are several years old;

6:- An untidy house,children who stay up late, or a chaotic lifestyle that does not fit in with the way our politically correct social workers think we should live !

7:-Absences from school or reports from school that a child was heard reporting ill treatment to another child.Such cases are of course worth investigating but never warrant the immediate removal of the child by social services as happens only too often.A child returning from school with a bruise, or a child  accidentally breaking or fracturing a limb is nearly always held to be the victim of an “unexplained” injury,and that soon translates into a non accidental injury for which parents are blamed and the child removed into “state care”( where abuse is commonplace) even when there is no previous pattern of bruises or injuries.

8:-Anonymous tip offs now descibed as “referrals reporting physical or sexual abuse of a child with no further evidence,” that often result in the immediate removal of a child often based purely on hearsay and gossip.

9:- Parents who “put their own needs before those of their children” .A “mantra” that is repeated in a monotone by social workers when they can think of no other criticism of parents to make .A completely meaningless phrase that gives a false sense of superiority to the person making it when really it is just their unsubstantiated opinion.

10:- And perhaps worst of all…… Babies are removed at birth for “RISK OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE”;Yes you read correctly,  Social workers actually do claim to predict the future and for parents it is always a bleak one  when the “SS” consult their tea-leaves or their” crystal balls” ! Gypsies can be quite accurate through generations of practice when they predict your future but social workers and judges?? UGH !Mothers suffer the worst possible punishment inflicted in the UK since hangings were abolished.(That is what the President of the family courts Sir James Munby said in a recent case!)

BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND in Re B (a child) House of Lords.

My Lords,

1. Taking a child away from her family is a momentous step, not only for her, but for her whole family, and for the local authority which does so. In a totalitarian society, uniformity and conformity are valued. Hence the totalitarian state tries to separate the child from her family and mould her to its own design. Families in all their subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and individuality. In a free and democratic society we value diversity and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in all the modern human rights instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights (art 8), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art 23) and throughout the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Justice McReynolds famously said in Pierce v Society of Sisters 268 US 510 (1925), at 535, “The child is not the mere creature of the State”
   CHILDREN’S WISHES MUST BE HEARD

Simon Hughes former Minister for Justice recently said:–

I therefore want to announce that it is the intention of the Ministry of Justice, and therefore the government, that we move as soon as is practical to apply in all our family justice proceedings in England and Wales where children and young people are concerned the policy that it will be the normal practice, the norm, that, from the age of 10, children and young people involved in public or private law family justice proceedings before the courts will have access to the judge, in an appropriate way which reflects their feelings and wishes to make clear their views as to what is the best resolution of the family dispute in their interest. Children and young people of 10 and over will therefore be given the chance to make clear their views in person or if preferred in another way. We will also work with the mediation sector to arrive at a position where children and young people of 10 years old and over have appropriate access to mediators too in cases which affect them.

Why 10? It seems to me wrong that a 10 year old in England and Wales is deemed old enough to be criminally responsible yet has no automatic voice in family proceedings in which decisions are being made about them. Children and young people should be involved and be seen to be involved. And if a child younger than 10 years is able to express themselves and wishes to do so then they too should have that opportunity. Though of course we must also recognise that where a child or young person is too vulnerable and needs their views to be represented by others, this also should be the case.

CHILDREN MISSING FROM CARE

The All Party Parliamentary Group for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the All Party Parliamentary Group for Looked after Children and Care Leavers set up an inquiry in response to recent concerns about the care and support that these groups of children currently receive.

The inquiry examined the issues around children who go missing from care and how they can be better protected.

The report outlines why children in care are at risk, finding:

• there are just over 65,000 children in care in England. Most live in foster care, and 7% live in one of England’s 1,810 children’s homes
• many of these children have had a difficult start in life, so are vulnerable and easy prey for exploitative adults
• children in homes are likely to be older, more vulnerable and are more likely to have complex needs
• an estimated 10,000 children go missing from care every year, many of whom are at risk of being physically or sexually abused or exploited.

Remember also that since April 2014 the new section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, makes provision for applications for contact AFTER an adoption order has been made.

—– Original Message —– From: “Kathryn Brown” <katybrown198528@gmail.com> To: “Ian Josephs” <ian@monaco.mc> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 11:56 AM Subject: Baby > Hi Ian > > I wanted you to be the first to know: > We pick up our baby today!

Thank you so much Ian. Without your support we would have lost her forever. Am so so grateful to you, truly

Katy

Now what could possibly bother me about social services and the family court system??

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.” The hearing above lasted only 15 minutes after a doctor “expressed the opinion” that bruising in the ear of one of the three children looked as though it was caused by pinching .The parents were not allowed to give any evidence!Their three children had all been forcibly removed until they were ordered to be returned by Lord Justice Thorpe on appeal.

Here is a list of the main defects !

1:-Forced adoption

2:-Taking children into care for future risk

3:-Gagging parents and jailing them if they protest in public.

4-:Gagging children by retricting conversation with parents at contact to nothing controversial, confiscating mobile phones,computers,and preventing access to any post office.

5:-Refusing parents leave to call witnesses

6:-Choosing experts and refusing parents any say in who is chosen or what questions are asked,with no second opinion allowed.

7 :-Branding parents as child abusers on the balance of probabilities that are often founded on mere unproved allegations ,pure gossip or other hearsay .

8:-Lawyers who advise clients to” go along” with social services even when adoptions are planned

9:-Punishing parents and children by separating them even when no crimes have been committed.

10:-Refusing entry to the court to grandparents,step-parents,and close relatives of the parents.

11:-Children taken from parents for alleged “emotional abuse” or risk of it.

12:-Telling wives to split from their husbands(and vice versa) otherwise they will lose their children(when they intend to take the kids anyway).

13:- One bruise,burn,or fracture,the parents are blamed, and the child is taken away;”one strike and you’re out!).If however children complain about sexual abuse and /or severe bruising in fostercare they are disbelieved(despite photos) and ignored as are their parents. A very fair” baker’sdozen” I reckon !

? Grimsby Police Abduct A 10 year Old Girl – YouTube There comes a time  like the above when soldiers,policemen,and the like have a duty to refuse to obey an order that is against human rights or is a crime against humanity….

My child was taken by three armed police and a social worker. They pulled this terrified child (who was  screaming) from my body and was carried  out by the arms. They held my neighbour in the basement of our house at gunpoint.  I did not know where this child was for five days but that this frightened youngster neither ate nor slept. My poor child tried to run away when we were in a foreign country and the foster carers refused to ever foster again as they were so distressed.   My darling child was shaking like a leaf and kept  writing letters begging me to return to me which were given to me,  one million pounds in lawyers later and this child is with a paedophile and has not been seen by me for three years. My child disclosed to a psychologist, the police, a GP and myself and my father. There was medical evidence all ignored.  My child showed foster carers a very sore bottom after seeing the father but was told adoption would result  if he didn’t go and live with father.

The police bruised both arms when they carried out my poor child who threatened suicide in foster care but still they forced this childto give up both mummy and home, move to UK and never see any  friends or family again. This child  is told he cannot call me mum and that a stranger is now the mother , has no contact with anyone  known before other than four short calls a year on speaker phone to me.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD AND JUDGES LIKE HON MRS X…….! Why are they punishing us and our children. All because we dared to report a crime, try to safeguard our children and love them. For this we are jailed, tortured by the system and watch our children being destroyed whilst powerless to help them.

There is constant talk of change but our children are with paedophiles for their childhood! Nothing is changing. Another day of abuse because they dared to disclose. My child says on the abe who is going to make this stop? The police woman says we can’t make anything stop. Who else does he ask?

On 6 Apr 2014, at 13:35, Vicky Haigh <vhaigh@live.com> wrote:

my daughter was snatched like this too but by social workers and she cried and cried saying “my mummy’s coming soon and we are going to have tea together”. e. A big black man and strange woman took her and reported that she cried the whole 23 miles to her paternal grandmother’s house where she cried all weekend then the next time I saw her she had mouth ulcers and cold sores all over her mouth.

It is barbaric this treatment. She was told if she agreed to see daddy she would see mummy more. The rest is history as I haven’t seen her for 3 and a half years.

I hate theses people and hope that they rot in hell.

They have ruined my life and took a little girl’s mummy away from an innocent child
Christopher Booker writes in the Sunday Telegraph 15/6/2014.
Many people will have been amazed by the story of Maureen Danby, the 72-year old grandmother given a three month prison sentence after police produced CCTV footage showing her and her 18-year old granddaughter running to embrace each other in a pub car park. The granny, who lives in Orkney, had travelled down to Derby to meet her beloved granddaughter, in defiance of a court order which since 2007 has only allowed them to have “supervised contact” by telephone once a month.  The girl, said to have a mental age of only nine, is so unhappy in “care” that according to Mrs Danby she has run away 175 times. She was forbidden to see her father again after he was jailed for roughly restraining her from “running into a busy road when she was having a temper tantrum”. He has twice more since been in prison, once for waving at his daughter when he saw her in a passing taxi on her way to school.  Martin Cardinal, the Court of Protection judge who sentenced Mrs Danby, said “I am sure this grandmother needs restraint”. It was Judge Carcinal who last year made news when it was revealed that he had secretly jailed Wanda Maddocks for removing her 80-year old father from a care home in which he had been put by social workers, where he was so ill-treated there that she feared for his life.  Of all the disturbing features of our “care” system, one of the most chilling is the draconian restrictions it imposes on contact between children and loving parents or grandparents who have not harmed them in any way, If they are allowed to meet at all, it is usually in a grim council “contact centre”, where every word is noted by a “contact supervisior”, watching for any breach of the rules which can stop the “contact” dead. ` I have several of the contracts family members must sign, before being allowed these”contact sessions”. One is 23 clauses long. These severely limit or forbid any show of affection by either side. Conversation must be limited only to “everyday matters”, such as how the children are doing at school. Virtually nothing the bewildered children want to discuss is allowed. Totally prohibited is any reference to why they are in “care”, what is to happen to them or how they are being treated (in one case, where a distressed 11-year old girl told her parents that she was being sexually  abused by a member of the foster carer’s family, they never saw her again). No reference can be made to the courts, social workers or any other “professional” involved in the case. Particularly forbidden is any “whispering”. Where foreign children are in care, they and their parents are forbidden to use the language they speak at home, When a Lithuianian grandfather recently flew to London to see his grandson, he was merely allowed one five-minute exchange on Skype, using the only three words of English he knew, “I love you”. Where no contact is allowed at all, the punishments for breaching this can be astonishingly severe. I have half a dozen cases where mothers were jailed simply for waving at their children when seeing them by chance in the street. I recently reported on the mother, still in prison after her desperately unhappy 13-year old daughter had run away from a care home where she was being physically ill-treated, The mother rang the police, but was careful to have no direct contact with her daughter, until the police begged to her to go in to calm the girl down in her brother’s house, where she was screaming and sobbing. For this the social workers persuaded a judge to jail her for six months. But the real mystery about this is where the courts and social workers think they have the legal authority to act in this utterly calllous and inhuman way, If any lawyer can tell me precisely which law allows them thus to trample on one of the deepest natural instincts human beings know, I would be very grateful.

See also a landmark case where both parents had bad criminal records and previous domestic violence but still recovered their baby from care !

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B110.html

I can only repeat the simple solution needed to reform our so called “child protection” system ………… NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME, end punishment without crime, finish punishment without crime,abolish punishment without crime,scrap punishment without crime,see that no parents are punished by child removal if they have not broken the law protecting children …………. Do away with “PUNISHMENT WTHOUT CRIME” !!

Here’s a video of me explaining my position on forced adoption and the gagging of both parents and children .

About

OR CHANNEL 4 TV:-

http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

http://www.thewhocarestrust.org.uk/pages/the-statistics.html

The statistics

It’s by no means a given, but children who spend time in the care system are less likely than other children to achieve academic success or benefit from stable relationships.

They are more likely to have problems with crime, drugs and mental health than their peers.

• When they leave primary school, 43% of children in care will have reached the national curriculum test level expected for their age – compared with 74% of all children.
• Almost one third of children in care leave school with no GCSEs or vocational tests like GNVQs.
• Only 13.2% of children in care obtain five good GCSEs – compared with 57.9% of all children.¹
• Only 6% of care leavers go to university – compared with 38% of all young people.²
• One third of care leavers are not in education, employment or training – compared with 13% of all young people.³
• More than one in 10 children had three or more placements in 2010^{. 4}
• 23% of the adult prison population has been in care and almost 40% of prisoners under 21 were in care as children (only 2% of the general population spend time in prison).
• A quarter of young women leaving care are pregnant or already mothers, and nearly half become mothers by the age of 24.⁵

HOW TO USE THIS SITE !

1:-If you want to learn about the tyranny of social services and the family courts in the UK READ ON !

2:-If social services are already bothering you or even threatening you CLICK ON  ABOVE MY PHOTO AND SKIP STRAIGHT TO THE GOLDEN RULES !

3:-If the “SS” have already taken your children or grandchildren skip straight to the golden rules and the list of contacts plus how to represent yourself ,then turn to the section “get your children back” and note the parts that apply in your case.

There are a lot of lunatics and fanatics on the “web”.SO Please note that EVERY case I quote has appeared in a national newpaper and all the figures that I feature originate from statistics issued by government bodies or officially recognised government sponsored charities. I draw your attention to facts that are not disputed; though my theories on how we should deal with those facts certainly will be contested by outraged protests from those involved in the highly profitable “care” and “adoption” industries. !

Captured Live on Ustream at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/alltalkradio-net

.

Forgive me if I repeat myself too often in this “exposé” of the “SS” and the family courts,but the average person simply cannot believe that such things happen in “democratic Britain”.Well,believe me they do! Repetition is necessary to reinforce your belief ! I have found in practice that I HAVE TO REPEAT THE SAME TRUTHS AGAIN AND AGAIN BEFORE READERS REMEMBER THEM AND ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEM.That is why you will keep coming across the same reminders of the same appalling injustices many times at different points in this narrative.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1308117/I-stolen-mother-The-deeply-disturbing-truth-forced-adoption.html

Social workers often grumble that I only listen to one side of the story and that from parents who are not truthful.

That is why a very important point is that after I HAVE SEEN THE POSITION STATEMENT OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I START OFF BY ASSUMING EVERY FACT THE SS RELIES ON IS TRUE and then ask myself if even then it justifies breaking up a family or worse still forbidding parents from having any contact (face to face or indirect) whatever with their children under pain of imprisonment ! . The answer in the sort of cases above that I receive when parents contact me is nearly always NO ! Why are the parents who ring me to complain that social services have taken their children nearly always right? Because they have very rarely been charged or convicted of an offence against children and PUNISHMENT without CRIME is always WRONG !

If on the other hand I or a journalist like Christopher Booker  ask the local authority for “their side”  of the story in any forced adoption or fostering case their usual response is to rush off and apply to the court for an injunction forbidding any person from discussing or seeking information about the case from any source ! Not very encouraging for anyone trying to get both sides of the story !

http://johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/   httpp:/johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/

Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B: ‘

 

Christopher Booker writes in The Telegraph   April 2nd 2016.

Politicians won’t see the dark side of adoption

It is not often this column half agrees with our social workers, but when the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, comes up with yet another government attempt to “fast-track” the speed with which children in “care” are adopted, and a Community Care poll shows that this is strongly opposed by 69 per cent of social workers, it is hard not to.

She is only doing this, they claim, because she wants to save money; and they believe that such relentless pressure to speed up adoptions is not in the children’s “best interests”. I have quoted before what was said last year to a conference by Maggie Mellon, deputy chairman of the British Association of Social Workers: “The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period with horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the Thirties, Forties and Fifties… that was done because it was felt it was the right thing. But now we think, how on earth could we possibly have done that?”

It is true that the record number of children now in care, 69,540 in England alone, is higher than at any time since the 1989 Children Act, while placements for adoption fell in 2015 by 24 per cent to 7,320. But the reason for this dramatic fall was two trenchant judgments in which our top family judge, Sir James Munby, excoriated local authorities for their failure in too many instances to make a proper case that adoption is in a child’s best interests. What, of course, ministers never admit is that, too often, there is no good reason for children to be taken from their families at all. Nor do they address the tragic fact that too many children then suffer far worse treatment in “care” than anything alleged against their parents as the excuse for removing them.

In December, Ofsted published new figures showing that in 2014/15 the number of times children went missing from foster care rose by 20 per cent, to a record 17,175. Many times in recent years I have reported on such cases, as when children manage to escape back to the loving parents from whom they had been removed, only to be forcibly returned by the police to the foster home they dreaded. It is true that adoptions do reduce the ever-rising cost of fostering, now estimated by the Commons Library at £36,524 a year for each child.

In my local paper recently, Bath and North East Somerset Council was offering foster carers “£600 a week” per child. And greatly adding to these costs are the lavish fees charged by fostering agencies, usually run by ex-social workers, such as Foster Care Associates, which in 2015 paid its senior director £406,000, or the National Fostering Agency, sold in 2012 to an “equity firm” for £130 million, which last year earned £94.5 million from local authorities for making their fostering arrangements, earning its highest paid director £318,112.

Until our politicians face up to the dark side of what is going on in our horribly corrupted “child protection” system, we can only echo Lord Justice Munby’s hope that, in 30 years’ time, “adoption as we understand it” will “bear very little relation to adoption as we practise it today”. But for now our ministers just press blindly on, wilfully oblivious to the massive scale of a disaster for which, ultimately, they more than anyone else are responsible.