Scroll down for the introduction with my history and contact details or click on the menu above for any of the other sections you wish to consult
HELLO!!! LET ME
Ian Josephs M.A. (Oxon)
STOP PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME ! ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION !
Click on the links to watch the BBC and ITV documentaries.
Watch the BBC film above ‘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: http://forced-adoption.com/#insideout.
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 on Channel 4 News
- 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 !
- Click here for Kidnap of children from their mother by Dutch social services Using Fraud power abuse – YouTube
- 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 .
- 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 !!
- Note 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.”
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” – Munby LJ(now President of the family courts) in Re BS
(x)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.”
- I also respectfully remind the court of the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions)  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.”
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.
CONTACT IAN !
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.
Alternatively,telephone me in France:0033626875684(I am British but I live and work abroad) ,I offer free legal advice! 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 !!” Remember to ASK me, and I will ring you straight back at my expense!(USUALLY THE SAME DAY).Please therefore leave your phone available and switched ON 9am-5pm because it is very frustrating for me to continually get voicemail when I am trying to give you help and advice !My services are FREE .I will NEVER ask you for money!
Please use regular email ;or fax documents to 0033493220967(This number is a fax line only and does NOT receive phone calls)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 email@example.com 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 !
Also please do not try to contact me via skype, facebook,twitter,or any similar source .I usually manage to answer all emails or phone messages 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……….
MY SERVICES ARE ALWAYS FREE AND I SHALL NEVER ASK YOU FOR MONEY FOR ANY REASON.
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)
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 .
WHO AM I?,
Who are you dealing with? and What do I do?
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 “forced-adoption”,(a phrase I made up to describe the very worst feature of the uk family courts). I now help bereft parents with advice and help in more than 1000 cases per year…………
I urge readers to campaign for the following reforms:-
The government should:-
2:-Scrap” Gagging orders” (when National Security is not involved)
3:- Forbid “Punishment without crime”(taking children from parents who have not committed crimes against children or forbidding such parents from contacting their children)We can then concentrate on protecting the fewer numbers of children who have been physically or sexually abused but who are at present overlooked as unsuitable for adoption.
(a) Allow Parents(like rape victims) to choose anonymity or publicity for their cases .
(b) Open both Family Courts and the Court of Protection to the public.
As simple as that……….
WHAT’S WRONG (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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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 !
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” – Munby LJ in Re BS
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.”
President of Family Division inveighs against social engineering in adoption proceedings – Marina Wheeler
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)  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  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)  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
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.
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
Click on the link below to watch Ian Josephs speaking at the Children Screaming To Be Heard conference in London July 2014
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  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
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!) The removal of their new born babies at birth to be given away for life to complete strangers for adoption is far far worse for parents than any prison sentence !……………
Sir James Munby ,President of the family Courts confirms in the case below that although hearsay evidence is admissible in family courts direct evidence from someone in the witness box testifying Under oath should normally be preferred if the two conflict.
17 February 2015
For Immediate Release
Family Court Judgment: Sir James Munby – custody of newborn child.
The following judgment was handed down this morning by the President of the Family Division Sir James Munby, and has been published on the Judiciary website. The case concerns the suitability of a birth father as a parent for his child, and the quality of the evidence of his unfitness provided by the local authority. This is a link: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/?p=55069
Neutral Citation Number:  EWFC 11
Some fundamental principles
- In the light of the way in which this case has been presented and some of the submissions I have heard, it is important always to bear in mind in these cases, and too often, I fear, they are overlooked, three fundamentally important points. The present case is an object lesson in, almost a textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.
- The first fundamentally important point relates to the matter of fact-finding and proof. I emphasise, as I have already said, that it is for the local authority to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the facts upon which it seeks to rely. I draw attention to what, in Re A (A Child) (No 2)  EWCA Civ 12,  1 FCR 141, para 26, I described as:
“the elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence (including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence) and not on suspicion or speculation.”
This carries with it two important practical and procedural consequences.
- The first is that the local authority, if its case is challenged on some factual point, must adduce proper evidence to establish what it seeks to prove. Much material to be found in local authority case records or social work chronologies is hearsay, often second- or third-hand hearsay. Hearsay evidence is, of course, admissible in family proceedings. But, and as the present case so vividly demonstrates, a local authority which is unwilling or unable to produce the witnesses who can speak of such matters first-hand, may find itself in great, or indeed insuperable, difficulties if a parent not merely puts the matter in issue but goes into the witness-box to deny it. As I remarked in my second View from the President’s Chambers,  Fam Law 680:
“Of course the court can act on the basis of evidence that is hearsay. But direct evidence from those who can speak to what they have themselves seen and heard is more compelling and less open to cross-examination. Too often far too much time is taken up by cross-examination directed to little more than demonstrating that no-one giving evidence in court is able to speak of their own knowledge, and that all are dependent on the assumed accuracy of what is recorded, sometimes at third or fourth hand, in the local authority’s files.”
It is a common feature of care cases that a local authority asserts that a parent does not admit, recognise or acknowledge something or does not recognise or acknowledge the local authority’s concern about something. If the ‘thing’ is put in issue, the local authority must both prove the ‘thing’ and establish that it has the significance attributed to it by the local authority.
- The second practical and procedural point goes to the formulation of threshold and proposed findings of fact. The schedule of findings in the present case contains, as we shall see, allegations in relation to the father that “he appears to have” lied or colluded, that various people have “stated” or “reported” things, and that “there is an allegation”. With all respect to counsel, this form of allegation, which one sees far too often in such documents, is wrong and should never be used. It confuses the crucial distinction, once upon a time, though no longer, spelt out in the rules of pleading and well understood, between an assertion of fact and the evidence needed to prove the assertion. What do the words “he appears to have lied” or “X reports that he did Y” mean? More important, where does it take one? The relevant allegation is not that “he appears to have lied” or “X reports”; the relevant allegation, if there is evidence to support it, is surely that “he lied” or “he did Y”.
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.”
BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND in Re B (a child) House of Lords.
- 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 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” <email@example.com> To: “Ian Josephs” <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
Now what could possibly bother me about social services and the family court system??
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 !
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 <email@example.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 !
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 .
OR CHANNEL 4 TV:-
Two Social workers founded this agency around 12 years ago !
———- STOP PRESS !The agency above has been sold for £130+million!
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
FROM LAS VEGAS !!
Diane Cecil manages a team at Essex county council whose job is to find families for children who are hard to place. “We have placed many children outside of Essex,” she says. “There have been some voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities that have provided good post-adoption services, and there have been some that haven’t provided anything at all.”
Cecil’s team recently placed a child with an Adoptionplus family after his first adoption broke down and it was clear he would need ongoing support. “I feel confident … this little boy and these adoptive parents are being provided with a very good support service,” she says. Although the cost of this type of placement is high (Adoptionplus charges local authorities £65,000 for placement and support), she adds that the alternative for the child would have been long-term foster care, costing the council around £27,000 per year. “For us, I felt that was a really good investment.”
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.
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 !