Also "How to keep your children if the SS threaten to take them !!"

Daily Mail headline refers of course to the Social Services appropriately known by all those unfortunate enough to have had "dealings" with them, as the SS !!

There is a wealth of information in this section to help you get your children back or to fight in court to kep them if the "SS" are on the attack !.This includes help in drafting a statement for the court which you will find by scrolling down to the red heading "Your statement".You are advised to read ALL the legal information in this section first however so that hopefully you are better informed before writing it out. 

Nearly all the arguments you need to present your case to the court  will be found here,and you only have to pick out those that apply to and also suit your particular case.

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

www.courtroomadvice.co.uk tells you what goes on in court and how you should behave.

Remember always that it is a waste of time attacking individual social workers(who investigate themselves) and fosterers who ,if they are looking after your children should be cultivated and made friends with however much you hate the idea !Make friends with the fosterers and potential adopters if you can meet them as this way at least you can keep track of where your children are! Attack in court with all your force both the reasons why your baby or your child was taken into care,and the system that allowed this to happen!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=432957&in_page_id=1 

Remember also that if  children are 16 or more they will often be released from care.Sometimes however the "SS" take a particular dislike to a family and say they will keep the child until 18 when the care order must expire.

NEVER MIND!  There is a way out ! IFa child marries at 16 then the care order ceases !A marriage anywhere in Scotland does NOT need parental consent.Take the hint !  

YOUR STATEMENT 

Begin your statement for the court as follows:-(But miss out anything that is not true or anything that just does not apply in your particular case.)

I have never neglected or abused my baby/child/children.I have no criminal record (Most crimes are wiped clean from police records after periods varying from 6 months to 10 years depending on the crime ) ,and I have never even been charged with a serious crime.I have no problems with alcohol or drugs,and no learning difficulties.My husband/wife/partner has a similar record. My child/children have always been happy, well dressed,clean,and have a good attendance record at their schools,Their accommodation is very suitable and has always been kept clean and tidy.My baby/child/children has/have been cruelly abused by the removal from my loving care.

IF AND ONLY IF you have been accused of unreasonable hostility towards social workers,an inability to work with professionals,and as a consequence suffering from personality disorder or in need of anger management courses add the following response ! Do NOT use the following 3 paragraphs unless youhave been accused of non cooperation or mental problems ! 

I am and always have been 100% willing to work with professionals performing their statutory duty of trying to reunite families and my family in particular.It is however quite unreasonable to expect me to "work with" persons whose avowed intent is and always has been to take my baby/child and give him/her away for adoption by complete strangers .

 Extract from "The Times" April 13th 2010 !

"Lord Justice Wall (The 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".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 of England" !

MPs from all parties signed a motion deploring the taking of children by social services in order to meet adoption targets that still function today via Ofsted PAF C23.

 More than 200 MPs of all parties signed another motion calling for an end to the secrecy of the family courts which still exists even now due to restrictions on what the press can report.

Journalists on the Times ,The Telegraph,and the Daily Mail plus also highly respected presenters on the BBC and  ITV have publicly reached similar conclusions. Please therefore do not accuse me of paranoia , of having a personality disorder, or of needing "anger management courses" just because like these distinguished professionals I too distrust social workers, and feel very angry with a  family court system that has not only abused and split up a family it had a duty to protect and unite but also and worse has cruelly deprived my baby/child/children/ of a loving mother/father/ parents.

I wish to appeal (or ask leave to appeal) against the recent decision to make my child(ren) subject to an interim care order/full care order/placement for adoption.I am prevented from doing so because the court/my solicitors refuse to give me a copy of the judgement /my file and my appeal cannot be accepted without proper documentation. 

The above is an example of how most statements for the family court should begin .USE A "SPELLCHECK" IF POSSIBLE BEFORE FILING YOUR STATEMENT . REMEMBER always your object is WIN your case not to score points or expose corruption !Your job is to do what it takes and say whatever it takes to WIN !!No lies in court of course but do not volunteer information unless asked directly and even then just reply "yes","no" "I don't know" or I don't remember" Think only of winning,winning,winning and forget getting your own back;proving you were right all alone ,etc etc just WIN your case and get your children back !

Remember your statement must be what you have seen with your own eyes or heard with your own ears and not what you think or what other people have told you !The same goes for any witnesses you are allowed to call. Back up your statement with relevant quotes from the Children Acts,and Human Rights Acts .YOU WILL FIND PLENTY THAT ARE SUITABLE QUOTES IN THE TEXTS THAT FOLLOW.

.Remember when appealing, that it is the previous judgement you must criticise point by point It is no use just rehashing the evidence unless court procedure was clearly not just unfair but illegal !If on the other hand a care order has been in force at least 6 months,you can ask for it to be discharged due to changed and improved circumstances.This is usually an easier process to initiate than an appeal. Follow this up after you have considered all the infomation found in this section ;you can then finally outline your case in your personal statement. (preferably after you have finished reading ALL the following hints and steps to take.)Your task is to prove that the children should be with you,that they will be healthy and happy with you,and that they are being abused by their separation from you.Do not waste time and energy attacking individual social workers or solicitors as no matter how bad you make them look it will NOT help prove that YOU are the right person to have care of the children!

 You can however always attack the therapists ,psychologists,psychiatrists,and other crackpot experts who are hired at vast expense to demolish your character!ASK THEM IN COURT HOW MUCH THEY HAVE BEEN PAID TO TESTIFY AND TO WRITE THEIR BIASED REPORTS !! Ask them also how many reports they have written recommending that children be put in care or adopted and how many contrary to social services wishes that children should be returned to their parents !. .Quite often their "qualifications" are false and bogus,and cannot be produced in court! Even more important,usually their own private lives can be exposed when questioned and shown to be in a far worse mess than yours.They are often littered with a series of failed marriages or partnerships with children they never see or who refuse to talk to them! This discredits them from daring to pass judgement on you from giving you any advice about your family ! You can in any case point out that these "moneyhungry charlatans" shamefully make their living out of the misery of others. They write long meaningless reports full of psychobabble and pretentious jargon to justify the removal of happy children and worse still newborn babies to meet "adoption targets".Often,they pompously predict these children are "at risk" from "future emotional abuse" due to events that will probably never happen!Severely abused and physically injured children are NOT good adoption material so they are only too often callously left to die ! 

20 BULLET POINTS TO REMEMBER SO SELECT ANY THAT APPLY IN YOUR CASE (On average two or three will probably apply to you ). They are summarised here and explained more fully later. 

 1 SS cannot stop you leaving the UK if no court order has been made.If you are pregnant and the "SS" are threatening to take your baby as soon as it is born your safest option is to leave the UK and take refuge in another European country where benefits are excellent and the regime is sympathetic such as Sweden for example.Even when there is a court order (often made in your absence while you are abroad) the publicity generated by the SS pressurising you to return can still end up with parents ,the winners!

There are no longer any frontier controls at the borders between 22 EU countries. This is thanks to the Schengen agreement which is part of EU law. The Schengen rules remove all internal border controls but put in place effective controls at the external borders of the EU and introduce a common visa policy. The full Schengen members are Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden (but not Ireland and the United Kingdom) plus Iceland and Norway (which are not EU members).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465421&in_page_id=1770

Better still providing no date for a family court hearing has even been fixed ,if both parents are later found together with the children in France,Spain,Italy,or Portugal the SS can do nothing at all about it !

2 Children in care cannot be prevented by force from afternoon visiting or from telephoning their parents!,(reverse charges if necessary)Also they can send and receive emails,so DON'T lose contact. 

 If social workers call the police to say a young person of ANY age is missing and they believe there is a danger of significant harm they can go to court for a recovery order and the police can take that person back temporarily. They have no power however to stop an immediate return to the parent's home next day and after a few days of going backwards and forwards will nearly always give up !  Please note that police sometimes claim that they have a warrant or have authority but have no need to show any documents to support this!

BUT read section 50,subsection 8 of the children Act .They DO have to show you written authority! 

8)  Where a person is authorised as mentioned in subsection (7)(c)—

(a)  the authorisation shall identify the recovery order; and

(b)  any person claiming to be so authorised shall, if asked to do so, produce some duly authenticated document showing that he is so authorised

Remember that any court document MUST BE SIGNED by a judge or a magistrate and usually stamped by the court . NEVER be taken in by a false order such as a paper that is waved in your face but not given to you to verify !

 If children are under 16 and over 12 they are often classified as "young persons" and even when in care they cannot be prevented from visiting parents as social workers would risk charges of assault and false imprisonment if physical force was used to stop them. 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES PROCEDURE MANUAL

Section D: Family Proceedings and Protection of Children

JUNE 1999 Page 2 of 4

D10.1 A Recovery Order provides legal powers to help secure the return of a

child missing from placement.

D10.1.1 A Recovery Order may only be made in respect of a child who is subject

to:-

i) a care order (including interim care order)

ii) an emergency protection order

iii) police protection

D10.1.2 A Court may make a Recovery Order if there is reason to believe that:-

a) the child is unlawfully taken away or kept away from the

person with responsibility for the child's care, or

b) the child has run away or is staying away from the

responsible person, or

c) the child is missing

D10.1.3 A Recovery Order requires a person harbouring a child to hand him or her

over and a person with information about the child's whereabouts should

disclose that information to the Police or a Court. It also empowers a

Constable to search named premises.

Section 50(i)

D10.1.4 If a child is missing from placement every effort must initially be made to

try and secure the return of the child by agreement. If the person holding

or harbouring the child refuses to hand the child over and there is no

immediate danger then that person should be notified in writing of the

action which the Authority will take if they refuse to comply. If however

there is an immediate risk then an application can be made without

notice.

D10.1.5 Effect of the Order

i) The Recovery Order must name the child and the person

who has made the application.

ii) The Order directs the person holding the child to produce

him/her at the request of the authorised person and empowers the

authorised person to remove the child.

iii) If any person has information as to the child's whereabouts,

he or she is required by the Order to disclose this information if

asked to do so by either a Police Officer or Court Officer.

3 Shaken baby syndrome cannot be proved for sure without body bruising or a previous history of injury or abuse.(see addendum to attorney general's report.) 

DOC]

Addendum to Report

Allegations that a baby has been shaken and consequently injured or even killed are hard to prove but also hard to disprove! Top experts who appeared for both sides in the Louise Woodward case in the USA disagreed with each other and testified in favour of the side that paid them in each case!This does cast doubt on the reliability of highly paid experts who give categoric opinions in court !              

The attorney general called for a review by the best medical and scientific brains in Britain last year and in the addendum to the report paras 14.1 and 14.2 concluded that even when all 3 symptoms were present (known as the triad; being retinal bleeding,subdural bleeding, and brain damage) it would NOT be safe to conclude that a baby had been shaken without a previous history of abuse or other injuries such as extensive bruising or broken bones. 

Format de fichier: Microsoft Word - Version HTML Her Majesty’s Attorney General. 14 February 2006. ADDENDUM TO REPORT. SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME. On the 21st December 2004 I announced the results of my review ... www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/attachments/shaken_baby_syndrome_review_report.doc - Pages similaires   Lords Hansard text for 14 Feb 2006 (60214-04)- [ Traduire cette page ] Child Protection: Shaken Baby Syndrome. 3.09 pm. The Attorney-General (Lord ... presence of the triad of injuries is consistent with shaken baby syndrome, ... www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60214-04.htm - 22k - En cache - Pages similaires

 

4"Failure of a baby to thrive" can be disproved by comparing progress after removal with that before,and in any case your own GP is the best person to say you have done all you could. Similarly your own GP is the best person to write a statement saying you have no need to take drugs like prozac to"manage your anger" and indeed that you are advised NOT to take any drugs against your will,since sometimes you may be ordered to take them by persons with NO medical qualifications such as social workers ,guardians and even judges !

 .5 Munchausen syndrome is a scientifically unproven theory and now largely discredited, that needs actual proof that some act of the parent has deliberately caused illness or physical harm to the baby or young child.Social workers have no qualifications to make this diagnosis though they often do !

In recent years, several mothers in the autism community have been accused of Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP), in which the mother is thought to be imagining the medical problems in her son/daughter. Former law professor, Dr. Bill Long, wrote a review paper for lawyers and judges on MSBP. Dr. Long's Executive Summary is below.
See the unabridged report (41-page .pdf)
MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME BY PROXY (“MSBP”)/FACTITIOUS DISORDER BY PROXY (“FDBP”):
A Guide for Judges, Lawyer and Parents
Dr. Bill Long; drbilllong@gmail.com
Executive Summary

For more than 30 years prosecutors, social workers and many mental health professionals have used a diagnosis of MSBP/FDBP as a means of taking children from their caregivers and then, often, bringing charges against the caregiver for abusing the children. At the heart of MSBP/FDBP is the allegation that the caregiver (usually the mother) is either lying about the medical symptoms experienced by the child or has induced real symptoms through poisoning or other injurious actions against the child. Why would the mother/caregiver do such a thing? Those who “believe in” the diagnosis argue that she does so in order to get attention from the medical community, often for unmet needs in her own life, and become the center of attention in a complex medical drama that she is inducing. Thus, the heart of a MSBP/FDBP allegation is that the mother or child’s caregiver is secretly “working the system” and trying to deceive multiple levels of medical staff as she goes about her nefarious design of injuring and perhaps even killing her child. Because the allegation of MSBP/FDBP relates to child endangerment, it has been a “hot button” sub-issue in the larger world of child abuse that has been at the fore of American social services and law in the past generation.

It is often difficult for prosecutors to “prove” that a mother has actually injured her child, especially since so many of the mothers alleged to be “MSBP/FDBP” “moms” themselves have medical training, personal charm, apparent solicitude for the child’s well-being and the well-being of the medical staff attending the child. Direct evidence (e.g., eyewitness testimony of induced poisons) is hard to come by; circumstantial evidence, too, is often scanty. Thus, the allegation of MSBP/FDPB—that the mother suffers from this “syndrome”--can be a sort of evidentiary boost for the prosecution when its case might otherwise be weak. By arguing that it is consistent for the sufferer of the “syndrome” to be an outwardly caring mother, one who eagerly seeks medical advice and affirms the medical staff, prosecutors can leap over a sometimes yawning evidentiary gap and help the state pry the child away from the parents. Then, as is argued in the paper, prosecutors need only refer to vague “studies” that show that children returned to MSBP/FDBP mothers face a significant likelihood of physical danger and even death at the hands of the caregiver, and courts almost always deprive parents of their child/children. Though child abuse is a significant problem and one that ought to be seriously addressed at all levels of society, the allegation of MSBP/FDBP can function as a evidentiary “short cut” to help make a prosecutor’s case for him/her when direct or circumstantial evidence is lacking.

One of the criteria for MSBP identified in a classic study is that the child’s symptoms abate when separated from the perpetrator. This is taken to be a sign that the caregiver induced or fabricated the symptoms. Yet, when the classic article using this definition is examined, one finds that the statistics she provides not only don’t support her point but actually lead to the opposite conclusion. Indeed, her evidence points to most cases of worsening of symptoms happening in the hospital. Of course, one could argue that these symptoms were induced by the caregiver in that context, but she does not so argue. In addition, if one thinks about this point for a moment, one would normally expect the child’s symptoms to abate when give over to the medical professionals. Perhaps as a result of the flimsiness of this criterion, later papers and definitions of MSBP don’t include it as a feature of MSBP.

I argue in the paper that the result of this kind of thinking and action has led to dramatically bad consequences for parents and their children, children who may have medical conditions that are difficult to diagnose and treat. If the mother, for example, denies that she has induced the physical ailment in her child, the state can say, “Ah, a denial is a sure sign that the mother is guilty of being an MSBP/FDBP mother. Thus, we recommend the child be taken away.” If, on the other hand, the mother “confesses” to having induced the illness in the child, the child will be taken away because a confession serves as direct evidence of the mother’s abuse of the child. Thus, mothers accused of being an “MSBP/FDBP mom” are in a Catch-22 type-of-situation. Shadowy allegations often are enough to take a child away from parents; and denials of abuse protect them no more than a confession.

With this the problem before us, I do two things in the paper: (1) describe the history of the diagnosis of MSBP/FDBP since its inception in 1977 and divide that history into four “sub-periods,” so that we can see the nature of the syndrome as it emerged in psychology and was developed in law; and (2) point out a number of vulnerabilities in the diagnosis that my historical discussion has uncovered. Four major difficulties with the diagnosis are: (a) its definition; (b) who is able to diagnose it; (c) who suffers from it (mother or child); and (d) what statistical evidence we have of the phenomenon. I argue that the cumulative effect of these problems is that that courts ought to stop accepting a diagnosis of MSBP/FDBP until they are satisfactorily cleared up. The remainder of this summary states my conclusions on (a)-(d).
First, with respect to definition, I show how the “classic” definition of MSBP in a 1987 article and the psychological definition of FDBP (the “successor” name for it), which appeared in the 1994 DSM-IV, differ in crucial ways. The 1987 article makes the mother’s intent and denial crucial to the definition of MSBP, while the 1994 definition focuses more on the induction of symptoms in the child than on caregiver intent. Indeed, in my article, I point to four ways in which the definitions aren’t consistent. On top of this is the fact that a new definition was introduced in 2000 as a significant professional group dealing with abused children created yet a third parallel syndrome—“Pediatric Condition Falsification.”
Second, the issue of who can diagnose MSBP/FDBP is a subtle one with wide-ranging ramifications. If it is only diagnosable by a mental health professional, then it will be done after suspicions are raised and tests are administered to the one suspected of MSBP. If, however, it is more of a “hypothesis” than a “conclusion,” social workers, educators, police, or anyone who might come in contact with a child whom they “suspect” might be a victim of MSBP can “diagnose.” But this difference of opinion on who can diagnose goes right to the heart of what MSBP is—a “syndrome” or a “suspicion.” The literature, as well as court cases, are confused on this point. A subsidiary point is when such a diagnosis may be made—at the beginning of the relationship between caregiver and professional or only after a process of examination has concluded?

Third, there is the issue of who suffers from MSBP. Most literature today says that it is the caregiver who does, but the classic 1987 article talks about the children being afflicted by MSBP.
Finally, there is disagreement on the statistics for MSBP. How prevalent is it? The early studies talked about its comparative rarity. Indeed, the 1987 study only found 117 cases of it in the previous 22 years of literature review—about 5.3 cases per year. But by the mid-1990s, some articles were claiming that the condition was not rare at all, and that courts, prosecutors, social workers and doctors must be on their guard to “smoke out” some of the hidden ways that this “syndrome” goes unnoticed. Along with great differences on the number of cases of MSBP is the related issue of the treatment of children if they are released back to their “Munchausen home.” With almost no foundation, some of the literature claimed that there was about a 20% chance that a child who goes home to Munchausen caregivers is going home to die. But when the 1987 study suggested a much smaller number, even the inventor of the “syndrome,” Dr. Roy Meadow, wrote to the publication saying that the 1987 numbers were highly inflated. Thus, we have a major statistical problem on our hands that needs to be resolved before such a diagnosis should be allowed in court.

Finally, it should be noted, the “godfather” of the diagnosis, Dr. Roy Meadow, has now been discredited in his native England for giving expert witness testimony in more than one case where he opined on statistical matters where he was later shown to have no competence, and his opinion contributed to separate jury’s finding that two mothers had murdered their children.
Therefore, until these four problems are addressed by those who still support a diagnosis of MSBP/FDBP, I recommend that it should be interred alongside its eponymous ancestor, Karl Friedrich Hieronymus, Freiherr von Munchausen.

6 Smacking that does not leave a mark is no offence.Small bruises and scratches occur during the rough and tumble of ordinary life for nearly all children.Broken bones,cigarette burns,a child's complaints (not anonymous tipoffs!) of sexual abuse,should all be looked at by independent medical experts.It is however very rare that parents who abuse or allow this sort of abuse ever dare to come to court to beg for the return of children they probably detest!  

7 SS have a legal obligation to place children with relatives where possible if they have removed them from parents.

 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,

unless that would not be reasonably practicable or consistent with his welfare.

    (7)  Where a local authority provide accommodation for a child whom they are looking after, they shall, subject to the provisions of this Part and so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with his welfare, secure that—

(a)  the accommodation is near his home; and

(b)  where the authority are also providing accommodation for a sibling of his, they are accommodated together.

Unfortunately ,judges,and lawyers ignore the above laws time and time again! Although kinship placements are supposed to be the preferred option in this country, The UK has a significantly lower proportion of children ‘in care’ or ‘looked after’ in kinship care than in other countries, with approximately 12 per cent, as compared to New Zealand’s 75 per cent, and Belgium’s 33 per cent

 8 Despite what your lawyers may say,you are now permitted to consult friends and individual helpers to discuss your case(children act 2004,section 62) and even to "go public" once all court proceedings are finally concluded,(Clayton v Clayton)

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

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

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

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

Statutory Instruments

• The Family Proceedings (Amendment) (No.2) Rules 2009 - Final

• The Family Proceedings Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Rules 2009 - Final

See Ministry of Justice Family Procedure Adoption Rules

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 .

News Release

---

27 June 2006

18/06

Clayton -v- Clayton: Summary of Judgment for Media

The Court of Appeal is today handing down its decision in the case of Clayton v Clayton.  This may well have widespread repercussions for parents and children, in relation to the identification of children as having been the subject of court proceedings once those proceedings are over.  Essentially, the decision concerns the balance between children’s right to privacy and their parents’ right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court of Appeal has decided that the prohibition from identifying children which section 97 of the Children Act 1989 provides only applies whilst the proceedings relating to the child in question are in progress. Once the proceedings have concluded, the protection given by the Act comes to an end, the entitlement to anonymity

The decision above means that once the court proceedings are over you are FREE to discuss your case with the press and anyone else you like even if it means that as a result you and/or your children may be identified as a consequence.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/en2004/04en31-d.htm

9 If your newborn baby is taken the SS have to have an emergency protection order or police protection order and if they cannot show you the document, hang on to your baby by force as they are acting illegally. You have the legal right to continue breast feeding the natural way (not expressing!).This of course gives you the right to much more contact with the baby than otherwise. 

10 If SS take your baby and you have never caused it harm and neither you nor your partner have a criminal record you will have a good chance of winning (p,c,and s versus UK) by appealing to the court of human rights in Strasbourg (they have an office in the UK) once ALL proceedings(including appeals) in UK courts are concluded. Make sure of this last point or your application will be refused. 

Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights

Please note that if the SS take your baby or very young child for no very good reason other than for " risk of emotional abuse" or some similar vague notion then they are probably just trying to meet their adoption targets and your human rights have certainly been infringed .The decision by the  European court of human rights  (p,c,and s versus United Kingdom) was that the action of the UK in taking a baby at birth from a mother that had never been accused of harming it was "draconian" and merited a large fine and damages to the mother.

If the SS take your newborn baby QUOTE THIS CASE IN COURT as a reason for its return to your care.Make it clear that you will appeal on a point of law and if that fails go to the European Court of Human Rights if the judge ignores this case and rules against you. 

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

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

Mothers have the right to breastfeed!

If you are menaced by SS threatening to steal your baby start breastfeeding IMMEDIATELY !! The SS must allow you enough contact to continue, and this may give you enough breathing time to  defeat their adoption plans.!

 

Precedent

*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

This case establishes the right of the mother to breastfeed,and is often ignored both by judges and the SS BECAUSE THE PARENTS ARE NOT AWARE OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THIS IMPORTANT CASE

11 According to the UN convention on children's rights children old enough to understand the nature of a court have the right to take part and be heard in proceedings that concern them.If you can get your children into court to say they are happy with you and that they want to stay with you, plus your family doctor to say you have always been a good parent you stand a very good chance of winning! 

Fight in court to have your children present in person to say that you have always treated them well and that they want to return home and call your own family doctor, who knows your family much better than the weird psychiatrists so often produced by the social services. If the allegations made against you by social services are false insist even against ferocious opposition that you cannot have a fair hearing unless your family doctor and any of your children said to have criticised you are present in person. Please understand this above all.
YOUR CHILDREN IN COURT(IF THEY ARE OLD ENOUGH) PLUS YOUR FAMILY DOCTOR OR BETTER STILL AN EXPERT SELECTED BY YOU, GIVES YOU AN EXCELLENT CHANCE TO WIN!!... WITHOUT THEM YOU WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY LOSE!

The social workers,the judge and even your own lawyers will usually resist the idea of children appearing in court (suffering emotional harm!) as they prefer to rely on videos where children have been rehearsed and pressurized into saying what they have been told to say.

Your answer must be the following 3 points:-

I wish my child to come to court to testify.

A:-Children suffer far more from a perhaps permanent separation from their families than from a few hours in court or from any publicity if the "neighbours" find out ! 

B:-Children who WANT to come to court to tell the truth will suffer far more from being forcibly prevented from doing this than from being allowed to do so.

C:- There cannot be a fair hearing if my principal witnesses are prevented from giving evidence, and therefore I shall appeal if this happens on the grounds that my human rights have been infringed.

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by 
General Assembly resolution 44/25 
of 20 November 1989

entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49

 Article 12 of the United Nations convention on children's rights gives a parent the legal right to call their children in judicial proceedings  as quoted below. 

 

 

Article 12 (child's right to participate in decision making)

1. Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law

Any claim that this clause is satisfied by the appointment of a "guardian" or "independent solicitor" to represent the children's views by stating in court an opinion diametrically opposed to that of the children concerned should be exposed as the sham that it is.Simply a device to keep the children's true opinions and desires from reaching the court and as such a clear breach of the spirit of the convention.

----

Girl, 6, makes legal history as judge in child abduction case allows her to choose whether to live with her mummy or daddy

By Andy Dolan
Daily Mail 15th April 2010

In a landmark case, a six-year-old girl caught in a tug-of-love battle has been allowed to choose which parent she will live with.

She became the youngest child to have her wishes influence the courts in an international child abduction case.

A judge heard how she had been left with a 'visceral' fear of being sent back to live with her father in Ireland.

The girl and her two brothers, aged three and eight, were brought to the UK by their English-born mother last summer.

They are now free to remain with her in this country after the Appeal Court yesterday upheld an earlier ruling by a family court judge to refuse the father's application for them to be sent back to Ireland.

Giving her decision last month, Mrs Justice Black said the six-year-old and her older brother had 'attained an age and level of maturity' to have their wishes taken into account.

She said it would be 'intolerable' for their younger brother to be separated from them.

The court heard the three siblings had spent all their lives in Ireland, their father's homeland, before their mother 'unlawfully removed' them last summer.

Their father's counsel, Edward Devereux, said it was a ' clandestine and well-planned' operation carried out while the father was at work.

He asked to have the children 'summarily returned' to Ireland under the Hague Convention, the international treaty which tackles-child abduction in family cases.

But Mrs Justice Black refused to order their return after hearing the strength of the two older children's objections to the move.

A social worker who interviewed the pair said that, when she told them they might be sent back to Ireland, the boy 'became very fidgety' and his little sister started to cry.

The youngsters said that, if they had to return to Ireland, they wanted to live in a secret location as far away from their father as possible, the court heard.

In her ruling, Mrs Justice Black said the children's objections were rooted 'in their own experiences of family life and their fear of their father'.

She added that there was nothing to suggest that they had been influenced or put under pressure by their mother.

At the Appeal Court, Mr Devereux argued that the judge's ruling undermined the whole basis of the Hague Convention, which requires that the future of children in such cases should be decided by the courts of the country from which they have been unlawfully abducted.

Describing the case as 'unique', the barrister said that six 'is the youngest age in the reported jurisprudence at which a child has been found to have attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of her views'.

Mrs Justice Black's 'radical' ruling, he said, would have 'a far-reaching impact' on child abduction cases.

However, after a two-hour hearing, Lord Justice Wilson and Lord Justice Sedley refused to grant the father permission to appeal, with the result that the children will now get their wish and stay with their mother in England.

Recognising the potentially widespread importance of the case, Lord Justice Sedley said the court would give the reasons for its decision at a later date.

 Last month's Court of Appeal hearing attracted much attention in the national press because at first instance Black J had taken account of the views of two of the three children involved. The younger of them was five years old at the time of her interview by a Cafcass officer.

Edward Devereux, representing the father, told the Court of Appeal that Mrs Justice Black's decision to consult the girl had been "radical" and "unique". He said that five was "the youngest age in the reported jurisprudence at which a child has been found to have attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of her views."

The father's application for permission to appeal was refused.

Delivering the main judgment of the Court, Wilson LJ cited the observation of Baroness Hale in In Re D (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51, that

"children should be heard far more frequently in Hague Convention cases than has been the practice hitherto".  He shared the concern that "the lowering of the age at which a child's objections may be taken into account might gradually erode the high level of achievement of the Convention's objective, namely – in the vast majority of cases – to secure a swift restoration of children to the states from which they have been abducted." However, he added: "A considerable safeguard against such erosion is to be found in the well-recognised expectation that in the discretionary exercise the objections of an older child will deserve greater weight than those of a younger child."

----

12Never sign any documents or undertakings, and never agree that the "thresholds" of abuse or neglect have been reached. If your solicitor "agreed the thresholds" on your behalf this amounted to an admission that you abused or neglected your child or put it at risk.Make it clear on appeal that you did NOT agree to this at all but were prevented from saying so in court by your own solicitor or better still by the judge telling you to sit down !You are entitled to receive a judgement so that if you wish to appeal or ask for a discharge of an interim care order,a final care order,or an adoption placement,you have a valid excuse for the delay. You state that you are "out of time" simply because you have been refused a judgement and therefore cannot know the grounds against which you are appealing ! 

13 RISK = future danger and "experts" make gypsylike predictions that are really just guesses that can never be proved.These so called "experts" are not infallible,Professors Meadows,Southall,and Dr Marietta Higgs have all been discredited and in the Louise Woodward case the top experts in the country violently disagreed in a shaken baby case and each testified for the side that paid them!SS ignore experts who do not agree with them and only produce experts in court that will help their case!

14 You do not suffer from a "personality disorder"just because you distrust social workers as many distinguished MPs,journalists,and broadcasters think the same as you but do not face the same accusation!

15 If your house was "cluttered" or untidy the SS should have helped you tidy up or at least warned you to do so rather than take your children without giving you a chance.

16 Emotional abuse= expecting too much of your child,or treating the child with contempt and without love. This  can and should be disputed if you apply the legal definition specified later in this section.Usually the accusation of "risk of emotional abuse" is so vague that it cannot possibly be covered by the official definition given by the Department of Health. 

Your statement should say :-"There is no evidence to show that my children ever have suffered or risk suffering emotional abuse as defined below by the Department of health. 

'Emotional abuse is the persistent emotional ill-treatment of a child such as to cause severe and persistent adverse effects on the child's emotional development. It may involve conveying to children that they are worthless or unloved, inadequate, or valued only insofar as they meet the needs of another person. It may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being imposed on children. It may involve causing children frequently to feel frightened or in danger, or the exploitation or corruption of children. Some level of emotional abuse is involved in all types of ill treatment of a child, though it may occur alone'. (Department of Health et al, 1999, p.5-6)

17 If school attendance was bad you should at least have received a written warning from the school or from SS before your children were removed! 

18 Remember that social workers ARE NOT POLICE and cannot give you orders or forbid you to tell your children that you love them,miss them and are fighting to get them back! It is absolutely essential that you blurt out "I love you and want you back but wicked childstealers have kidnapped you and these horrible thieves are stopping you from coming home !" Say this or words to that effect before anyone can stop you as SS nearly always tell children "mummy does not love you or want you any more" and the children MUST know the truth. Only a court can legally give you orders so do not be bluffed into signing documents or obeying orders from the SS !

19 Social Workers have a statutory duty to try and keep families together not split them up ,so they should be asked in court just what attempts they made to keep YOUR family together before taking the baby or the children !

QUOTE THE "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT"section 8:- (The most important)

Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life

This guarrantee applies also to the rights of grandparents,siblings,aunts,uncles,and cousins to remain in contact with each other contrary to the forced adoption of a child by adopters whose names and locations are kept secret!

20:- YOU MUST BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK IN COURT AND TO SAY ALL YOU WANT TO SAY,CALL ALL THE WITNESSES YOU WANT TO CALL,AND MAKE ALL THE POINTS AND ARGUMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE ! Sack any solicitor or barrister that refuses you these very elementary legal rights OR worse still who advises you to surrender and go along with everything the SS demand.You do not need a lawyer to earn easy money by arranging your surrender. If you represent yourself as at least then you won't be gagged !You will at least have a chance to win !

For a more complete list of articles see below. (8,10,and11 are the most relevant)

Click on the categories below to read the relevant article of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The right to life l Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment l Freedom from forced labour l Right to Liberty l Fair trial l l Retrospective penalties l Privacy l Freedom of conscience l Freedom of expression l Freedom of assembly l Marriage and family l Freedom from discrimination l First Protocol

Article 2: Right to Life

(1) Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law.
(2) Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary- (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Return to top

---

Article 3: Inhuman treatment

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Return to top

---

Article 4: Slavery

(1) No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
(2) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
(3) For the purpose of this Article the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:
(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed in accordance to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
(b) any service of a military character or, in the case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
(c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
(d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.

Return to top

---

Article 5: Right to Liberty

(1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics and drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
(2) Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reason for his arrest and of any charge against him.
(3) Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
(4) Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
(5) Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Return to top

---

Article 6: Right to a fair trial

(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
(2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
(3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights -

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Return to top

---

Article 7: Retrospective crimes

(1) No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

(2) This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time it was committed, was criminal according to the general law recognised by civilised nations.

Return to top

---

Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right 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.

Return to top

---

Article 9: Freedom of conscience

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

(2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Return to top

---

Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Return to top

---

Article 11: Freedom of Assembly

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

(2) No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, 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.

This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the state.

Return to top

---

Article 12: Marriage and the family

Men and women of marriageable age shall have the right to marry and to found a family, according to national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Return to top

---

Article 14: Discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status

Many of the above points will probably apply in YOUR case,and if they do you are advised to include them in your statement.

Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts)

1)

This Guidance applies to civil and family proceedings in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), the High Court of Justice, the County Courts and the Family Proceedings Court in the Magistrates’ Courts.1 It is issued as guidance (not as a Practice Direction) by the Master of the Rolls, as Head of Civil Justice, and the President of the Family Division, as Head of Family Justice. It is intended to remind courts and litigants of the principles set out in the authorities and supersedes the guidance contained in Practice Note (Family Courts: McKenzie Friends) (No 2) [2008] 1 WLR 2757, which is now withdrawn.2 It is issued in light of the increase in litigants-in-person (litigants) in all levels of the civil and family courts.

The Right to Reasonable Assistance

2)

Litigants have the right to have reasonable assistance from a layperson, sometimes called a McKenzie Friend (MF). Litigants assisted by MFs remain litigants-in-person. MFs have no independent right to provide assistance. They have no right to act as advocates or to carry out the conduct of litigation.

What McKenzie Friends may do

3)

MFs may: i) provide moral support for litigants; ii) take notes; iii) help with case papers; iii) quietly give advice on any aspect of the conduct of the case.

What McKenzie Friends may not do

4)

MFs may not: i) act as the litigants’ agent in relation to the proceedings; ii) manage litigants’ cases outside court, for example by signing court documents; or iii) address the court, make oral submissions or examine witnesses.

Exercising the Right to Reasonable Assistance

5)

While litigants ordinarily have a right to receive reasonable assistance from MFs the court retains the power to refuse to permit such assistance. The court may do so where it is satisfied that, in that case, the interests of justice and fairness do not require the litigant to receive such assistance.

6)

A litigant who wishes to exercise this right should inform the judge as soon as possible indicating who the MF will be. The proposed MF should

1 References to the judge or court should be read where proceedings are taking place under the Family Proceedings Courts (Matrimonial Proceedings etc) Rules 1991, as a reference to a justices’ clerk or assistant justices’ clerk who is specifically authorised by a justices’ clerk to exercise the functions of the court at the relevant hearing. Where they are taking place under the Family Proceedings Courts (Childrens Act 1989) Rules 1991 they should be read consistently with the provisions of those Rules, specifically rule 16A(5A).

2 R v Leicester City Justices, ex parte Barrow [1991] 260, Chauhan v Chauhan [1997] FCR 206, R v Bow County Court, ex parte Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1807, Attorney-General v Purvis [2003] EWHC 3190 (Admin), Clarkson v Gilbert [2000] CP Rep 58, United Building and Plumbing Contractors v Kajla [2002] EWCA Civ 628, Re O (Children) (Hearing in Private: Assistance) [2005] 3 WLR 1191, Westland Helicopters Ltd v Sheikh Salah Al-Hejailan (No 2) [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 535. Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) (No 2) [2006] 1 WLR 2126, Re N (A Child) (McKenzie Friend: Rights of Audience) Practice Note [2008] 1 WLR 2743.

1

　

produce a short curriculum vitae or other statement setting out relevant experience, confirming that he or she has no interest in the case and understands the MF’s role and the duty of confidentiality.

7)

If the court considers that there might be grounds for circumscribing the right to receive such assistance, or a party objects to the presence of, or assistance given by a MF, it is not for the litigant to justify the exercise of the right. It is for the court or the objecting party to provide sufficient reasons why the litigant should not receive such assistance.

8)

When considering whether to circumscribe the right to assistance or refuse a MF permission to attend the right to a fair trial is engaged. The matter should be considered carefully. The litigant should be given a reasonable opportunity to argue the point. The proposed MF should not be excluded from that hearing and should normally be allowed to help the litigant.

9)

Where proceedings are in closed court, i.e. the hearing is in chambers, is in private, or the proceedings relate to a child, the litigant is required to justify the MF’s presence in court. The presumption in favour of permitting a MF to attend such hearings, and thereby enable litigants to exercise the right to assistance, is a strong one.

10)

The court may refuse to allow a litigant to exercise the right to receive assistance at the start of a hearing. The court can also circumscribe the right during the course of a hearing. It may be refused at the start of a hearing or later circumscribed where the court forms the view that a MF may give, has given, or is giving, assistance which impedes the efficient administration of justice. However, the court should also consider whether a firm and unequivocal warning to the litigant and/or MF might suffice in the first instance.

11)

A decision by the court not to curtail assistance from a MF should be regarded as final, save on the ground of subsequent misconduct by the MF or on the ground that the MF’s continuing presence will impede the efficient administration of justice. In such event the court should give a short judgment setting out the reasons why it has curtailed the right to assistance. Litigants may appeal such decisions. MFs have no standing to do so.

12)

The following factors should not be taken to justify the court refusing to permit a litigant receiving such assistance:

(i)

The case or application is simple or straightforward, or is, for instance, a directions or case management hearing;

(ii)

The litigant appears capable of conducting the case without assistance;

(iii)

The litigant is unrepresented through choice;

(iv)

The other party is not represented;

(v)

The proposed MF belongs to an organisation that promotes a particular cause;

2

3 Legal Services Act 2007 s12 – 19 and Schedule 3.

(vi)

The proceedings are confidential and the court papers contain sensitive information relating to a family’s affairs

13)

A litigant may be denied the assistance of a MF because its provision might undermine or has undermined the efficient administration of justice. Examples of circumstances where this might arise are: i) the assistance is being provided for an improper purpose; ii) the assistance is unreasonable in nature or degree; iii) the MF is subject to a civil proceedings order or a civil restraint order; iv) the MF is using the litigant as a puppet; v) the MF is directly or indirectly conducting the litigation; vi) the court is not satisfied that the MF fully understands the duty of confidentiality.

14)

Where a litigant is receiving assistance from a MF in care proceedings, the court should consider the MF’s attendance at any advocates’ meetings directed by the court, and, with regard to cases commenced after 1.4.08, consider directions in accordance with paragraph 13.2 of the Practice Direction Guide to Case Management in Public Law Proceedings.

15)

Litigants are permitted to communicate any information, including filed evidence, relating to the proceedings to MFs for the purpose of obtaining advice or assistance in relation to the proceedings.

16)

Legal representatives should ensure that documents are served on litigants in good time to enable them to seek assistance regarding their content from MFs in advance of any hearing or advocates’ meeting.

17)

The High Court can, under its inherent jurisdiction, impose a civil restraint order on MFs who repeatedly act in ways that undermine the efficient administration of justice.

Rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation

18)

MFs do not have a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation. It is a criminal offence to exercise rights of audience or to conduct litigation unless properly qualified and authorised to do so by an appropriate regulatory body or, in the case of an otherwise unqualified or unauthorised individual (i.e., a lay individual including a MF), the court grants such rights on a case-by-case basis.3

19)

Courts should be slow to grant any application from a litigant for a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation to any lay person, including a MF. This is because a person exercising such rights must ordinarily be properly trained, be under professional discipline (including an obligation to insure against liability for negligence) and be subject to an overriding duty to the court. These requirements are necessary for the protection of all parties to litigation and are essential to the proper administration of justice.

3

20)

Any application for a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation to be granted to any lay person should therefore be considered very carefully. The court should only be prepared to grant such rights where there is good reason to do so taking into account all the circumstances of the case, which are likely to vary greatly. Such grants should not be extended to lay persons automatically or without due consideration. They should not be granted for mere convenience.

21)

Examples of the type of special circumstances which have been held to justify the grant of a right of audience to a lay person, including a MF, are: i) that person is a close relative of the litigant; ii) health problems preclude the litigant from addressing the court, or conducting litigation, and the litigant cannot afford to pay for a qualified legal representative; iii) the litigant is relatively inarticulate and prompting by that person may unnecessarily prolong the proceedings.

22)

It is for the litigant to persuade the court that the circumstances of the case are such that it is in the interests of justice for the court to grant a lay person a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation.

23)

The grant of a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation to lay persons who hold themselves out as professional advocates or professional MFs or who seek to exercise such rights on a regular basis, whether for reward or not, will however only be granted in exceptional circumstances. To do otherwise would tend to subvert the will of Parliament.

24)

If a litigant wants a lay person to be granted a right of audience, an application must be made at the start of the hearing. If a right to conduct litigation is sought such an application must be made at the earliest possible time and must be made, in any event, before the lay person does anything which amounts to the conduct of litigation. It is for litigants to persuade the court, on a case-by-case basis, that the grant of such rights is justified.

25)

Rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation are separate rights. The grant of one right to a lay person does not mean that a grant of the other right has been made. If both rights are sought their grant must be applied for individually and justified separately.

26)

Having granted either a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation, the court has the power to remove either right. The grant of such rights in one set of proceedings cannot be relied on as a precedent supporting their grant in future proceedings.

Remuneration

27)

Litigants can enter into lawful agreements to pay fees to MFs for the provision of reasonable assistance in court or out of court by, for instance, carrying out clerical or mechanical activities, such as photocopying documents, preparing bundles, delivering documents to opposing parties or the court, or the provision of legal advice in connection with court

4 5

　

proceedings. Such fees cannot be lawfully recovered from the opposing party.

28)

Fees said to be incurred by MFs for carrying out the conduct of litigation, where the court has not granted such a right, cannot lawfully be recovered from either the litigant for whom they carry out such work or the opposing party.

29)

Fees said to be incurred by MFs for carrying out the conduct of litigation after the court has granted such a right are in principle recoverable from the litigant for whom the work is carried out. Such fees cannot be lawfully recovered from the opposing party.

30)

Fees said to be incurred by MFs for exercising a right of audience following the grant of such a right by the court are in principle recoverable from the litigant on whose behalf the right is exercised. Such fees are also recoverable, in principle, from the opposing party as a recoverable disbursement: CPR 48.6(2) and 48(6)(3)(ii).

Personal Support Unit & Citizen’s Advice Bureau

31)

Litigants should also be aware of the services provided by local Personal Support Units and Citizens' Advice Bureaux. The PSU at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be contacted on 020 7947 7701, by email at cbps@bello.co.uk or at the enquiry desk. The CAB at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be contacted on 020 7947 6564 or at the enquiry desk.

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Master of the Rolls

Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division

12 July 2010

IF YOU EMAIL ME THE STATEMENT(ian@monaco.mc) YOU HAVE COMPOSED I WILL ALWAYS READ IT,AND SUGGEST POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS !You can also phone me to discuss it on 0033626875684

Remember that if you need transcripts from a previous case you can get at least one free ! 

Practice Memorandum No. 4 - Transcripts at Public Expense (PDF 16KB) 31 December 2004
Sets out when a transcript of an oral hearing before a Commissioner will be provided at public expense.

In court, above all be brief !Your two special words in court when questioned by SS lawyers (or by the SS at case meetings or by therapists,psychologists etc) must be YES and NO.If you are pressed to explain further, do not elaborate or try to explain your answers with more than 9 or 10 words as only things you let slip that can count against you will be noted and anything favourable will be discarded and forgotten !Never think that if you "admit" some small fault that it will make your story more credible.It will not ,it will simply help the SS to keep your children so admit NOTHING voluntarily;keep firm in the simple and forceful assertion that the children need love and care and you are the best person to give it! Above all stress that THEY are the victims of SS abuse not you,as it is their welfare that is paramount not your's!

 

As already stated in the introduction section,children of all ages even those under 12 aged 7 or 8 for example can go to any phone box and call parents reverse charges if they are quietly told how to do this.

Dial 100 from any private phone or public call box and you will be offered 4 options(choices) Choose option4 ask the operator for a call transferring the charges. The operator will then ask you for your name and the number you are calling.(this must be to a fixed line not a mobile)Your mother or father will then say ok they accept the call and no money is needed from the child who is calling! 

 If there is no court order section34 forbidding contact they can always meet you for an afternoon or so and it would be an assault  for social workers to physically stop them ! 

The important thing is firstly to keep in touch with your children  telling them you still love them and are fighting the wicked social workers who kidnapped them.(social workers have absolutely NO legal right to censor your conversation)You should then take positive steps to recover them and welcome them back home .

Allegations that a baby has been shaken and consequently injured or even killed are hard to prove but also hard to disprove! Top experts who appeared for both sides in the Louise Woodward case in the USA disagreed with each other and testified in favour of the side that paid them in each case!This does cast doubt on the reliability of highly paid experts who give categoric opinions in court !              

The attorney general called for a review by the best medical and scientific brains in Britain last year and in the addendum to the report paras 14.1 and 14.2 concluded that even when all 3 symptoms were present (known as the triad; being retinal bleeding,subdural bleeding, and brain damage) it would NOT be safe to conclude that a baby had been shaken without a previous history of abuse or other injuries such as extensive bruising or broken bones. 
   

FORCED ADOPTION:- The weak point!

Take a look at the articles in the complete convention to see which of them SS have broken in their dealings with you !Remember that brothers and sisters and newborn babies all have a Human Right to enjoy face to face contact with each other even after being adopted into different families.Remember to tell any older child with whom you still do have contact who is capable of understanding the situation to go to a solicitor to demand visits to a sibling  that has been adopted and consequently that child when old enough to speak and understand can let you know all about the baby or child you lost so that eventually you can contact them yourself and tell them who you are and who they are ! 

One mother I have been helping succeeded in persuading the court in Strasbourg to take up her case! The whole affair is still very much ongoing and despite delays initiated by the SS we are hopeful eventually of a satisfactory conclusion. She is willing to talk to other parents whose children have (like her's) been wrongly put in the "care" of social services.She will explain the steps she took after her baby and her other children were brutally snatched even though she was never accused of harming them.The lawyers acting for the SS were so worried when Sharon asked the judge for a copy of the judgement in the family court,that their barrister shouted out across the court room"Don't give her anything she's contacted Strasbourg!" Sharon's home number is 0151 295 2268.Or try her mobile 07877316250.

Your Rights: The Human Rights Act: European Court of Human Rights ...

F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex France Fax: 00 33 3 88 41 27 30 When it has received your letter the ECHR will send you one of its application forms to complete. ... www.yourrights.org.uk/.../european-court-of-human-rights/european-court-of-human-rights.shtml - 20k - Cached - Similar pages  How soon can I be released? You can't be kept at a police station for more than 24 hours without being charged, although this can be extended to 36 hours with the authority of a police superintendent, and longer with the authority of a magistrate. The one exception is for arrests under the Terrorism Act, where you can be held without charge for up to seven days. If there's not enough evidence to charge you, you'll be released on police bail. You don't have to pay to be released on police bail, but you'll have to return to the station for further questioning when asked. If you're charged and the police think there's a risk that you may commit another offence, fail to turn up at court, intimidate other witnesses or obstruct the course of justice, they can impose conditional bail. This means your freedom will be restricted in some way. For example, a curfew may be imposed on you if your offence was committed at night. If you've been charged with a serious offence, you may be refused release and remanded in custody until trial. If you are found guilty, the time spent in prison before trial will be deducted from your sentence. Can I complain if I think I've been a victim of police misconduct? If you believe you've been arrested and detained unlawfully or your rights have been abused, you can complain to: your local police station (new window) the Independent Police Complaints Commission (new window) a solicitor

http://www.pfc.org.uk/legal/echrtext.htm 

Important please note: A 'sympathetic' Social Services complaints officer brought up in care thought this might be worth sharing.

1. When writing complaints it is a good idea to write as little as possible in the complaint!

He recommends writing something like...

Your name/address/date ect

I wish to make a complaint about the Local Authority's failure to consult with me regarding my child's medical treatment (for example)
I also make this complaint under section 26 Children Act and request assistance to write this.

Yours sincerely etc

He says they are then obliged to visit you, take the details, write your complaint and give it to you to check before signing.

That way not only do you get help to write the complaint but you don't 'show your hand before the investigation begins.

He said “never give them all the evidence until you see the independent investigator."

If you really do have a serious complaint against the police I advise you to go directly to the independent police complaints commission and follow the procedure outlined below . 

How to make a complaint There are many ways you can make your complaint, you can make a complaint directly to the police force concerned, through the IPCC or another advice organisation. Whatever the route, all complaints, by law, must be forwarded to the ‘appropriate authority’ for consideration. You can make your complaint: You can complete an online complaint form You can download a complaint form or we can send a form to you. Via the IPCC by phone, email, post, fax, minicom. To any police force by phone, email, post, fax or in person By contacting any local Citizens Advice Bureau, Youth Offending Team, Racial Equality Council, Probation Service or Neighbourhood Warden. They can give information about what to do next. A solicitor or MP can make a complaint on your behalf. If you would like someone to act on your behalf (perhaps a relative or friend) please provide their details and your written permission separate to your complaint.    What you should include in your complaint; As well as your full contact details, please try to provide the following information; WHO? Which police force is your complaint about? WHERE? Where did the incident/s happen that led to your complaint? WHEN?When did the incident/s happen that led to your complaint? WHAT?Please describe the circumstances that have led to you feeling the police have treated you badly. Please include details of: Who was involved What was said and done Any other people who witnessed the incident If there was any damage or injury Details of any witnesses We also need your consent for us to pass the details of your complaint to the police force concerned for consideration Also adviceguide.org.uk  the site of the citizen's advice bureau gives a lot of information including the following:- When can they enter and search premises In general, the police don’t have the power to search premises without a warrant unless they have obtained the permission of the person concerned, or unless a delay in obtaining a warrant would be likely to defeat the ends of justice, for example, that evidence will be destroyed or removed. A search warrant authorises the police to enter premises on one occasion only. If the police have a search warrant they can, if necessary, use reasonable force to enter and search the premises. The householder or occupier of the premises is responsible for any repairs that are needed as a result of the police forcing entry. However, if the police search an address in error, the police should be asked to repair any damage they cause. As well as getting a warrant to enter and search because of suspected crime, a warrant can be issued to enter premises to check if the occupant is at risk because of mental illness. A warrant can also be issued to enter the home of a sex offender to do a risk assessment. When can they seize property If the police have used a search warrant to search premises or a vehicle and they have found articles covered by the warrant, they have the power to seize them and take them into safe custody, for example, to a police station. The articles are held there as possible evidence in any criminal proceedings which the Procurator Fiscal may decide to start. Where a warrant is granted to search for specific items of stolen property, the police have the power to seize other items not referred to in the warrant if they show the suspect may have been involved in another crime. If the police have seized certain articles after a search, you have no right to make the police return the articles and there is no time limit on how long the police can hold them. If you want to enquire about retrieving articles from the police you should write to the Chief Constable to establish if the property is to be used in evidence. If the property is to be used as evidence, the Procurator Fiscal is responsible for its disposal and the Fiscal will deal with enquiries concerning the property. You may be able to take legal action to get a court order for the article(s) to be returned but this would be a complex process, for which legal advice would be needed.

STEPS TO TAKE :-

  

1. If your children have been taken into care indefinitely or even "temporarily" do not be bamboozled or fooled by Social Workers or by legal aid lawyers!!  In cases such as these Social Services are not there to help you, they are your WORST ENEMIES !! Whatever they suggest is usually not to help you or your children, but to make sure you lose any case you  are pursuing to recover them. You must oppose any suggestions in or out of court that your children would benefit from a period in care otherwise at a later hearing the judge can and probably will say that you have already admitted that your children would be better off in care than with you. The decision will usually confirm that opinion and you will probably lose them for good.

Above all NEVER NEVER NEVER agree that the thresholds have been reached ! They may tell you that this is the only way to get your children back. In fact if you agree that the thresholds of abuse or neglect have been reached you are in effect already admitting that you are a child abuser and the only question left for the final hearing to decide is whether or not you can confess all the errors of your ways and reform! Usually of course the decision is "no" and your children are lost (often for good). The interim care orders normally only last one month,and the only reason for that is to allow parents to challenge the orders each time they expire.That therefore is exactly what you should do !

DIVIDE AND RULE is another SS tactic.When social workers tell you that if only you split from your partner you will keep your children,DO NOT BELIEVE THEM ! Unless to your knowledge your partner is a violent or sexual abuser of children STAY TOGETHER!Once you are apart in court represented by two (often opposing) lawyers it is child's play for SS to win their case and take your children.

  

2. Do NOT fall for any suggestion that you engage a local legal aid solicitor with “experience” of dealing with care problems ,especially those who are highly recommended by a helpful social worker!. I advise that you represent yourself if possible .Samantha is a young 25 year old mother of 5 children whom I have helped and she began with legal aid lawyers who lost every case by not putting up a real fight and as a consequence she lost 3 of her children to adoption.At this point she decided to represent herself and defeated attempts by social services to steal her newborn baby and her eldest son.The fact is that her lawyers had a 100% FAILURE RATE in each of several court actions, but Samantha acting for herself has had 100% SUCCESS in each court hearing where she represented herself!She is willing to advise any other young single mother as to how she did it . Samantha's phone number is 07984373141.

 If you do get legal aid use a solicitor who lives well out of the area from which the children were taken, and if possible from a completely different county.Search Google "family law solicitor Manchester"(or whichever nearby but not too near town you choose).There are many other ways of contacting a solicitor outlined at the end of this section.Select someone who will promise to fight social services all the way and allow you to speak your mind in court .Do not bankrupt yourself by paying huge fees to private lawyers who will take you for every penny and leave you with financial worries to add to your family problems.

3. Most of the legal aid solicitors are a bunch of professional LOSERS.They can certainly afford to be ! An average case can cost at least £500,000 when all the legal fees on both sides are added up ! When they represent parents begging for social services to return their precious children  they lose nearly every case they take on because they rarely call the witnesses that can help and they practically never challenge anything the social services say because they work closely with these people and want more business from them. These so called lawyers will usually advise you to plead guilty if you are accused of abuse or neglect as this saves them a lot of trouble. The less time they take over your court case and the fewer witnesses expenses they have to pay the more money they make while their friends the social workers applaud as you lose your case.Luckily there are a few exceptions as the follwing article from the telegraph shows !!

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

4. Unlike social workers, the Clerks in the court are nearly always very helpful if you file an application to get your children back yourself. Even if you are not used to court proceedings, at least you can call your own witnesses and unless there is some special reason to the contrary ALWAYS  ALWAYS call the family doctor and the children themselves.This usually makes the difference between winning and losing.

 The most difficult accusation to deal with is when SS pay enormous sums of money to "experts" ie Therapists,psychiatrists,psychologists,and medical specialists, who will dutifully support SS (with reports comprising 20 or more pages of meaningless jargon) in their dire forecasts that your children (or even newborn babies) are at great risk of "emotional abuse".These reports avoid like the plague pointing out specific faults in your parenting that you could possibly rectify.Instead they ramble on about your "state of mind",your unreasonable hostility to dedicated social workers (who have literally kidnapped your children!),amounting to paranoia and personality disorder;and of course your emotional instability (sometimes suicidal) .It incredibly seems to surprise them that desperate mothers who have lost their children show these symptoms, and they then claim that it proves their instability and unsuitability as parents!

Happy ,healthy,well dressed and well fed your children may be,but these accusations by experts predicting the future like gypsies gazing into crystal balls are difficult to refute and are usually enough to lose you your children to adoption by complete strangers!Sometimes a distraught mother fighting for her children against the opinion of medical  "experts" called by social services will be questioned by the judge."Do you think the experts are all wrong?"He will ask.A good answer is that experts tend to side with those who pay them.Professor Meadows,Professor Southall, and Dr Marietta Higgs are three supposedly   "top experts" in their fields paid by social services for supporting the legal kidnapping of literally hunreds of children through evidence based on crackpot theories that have now all been thoroughly discredited !Even more respectable experts can be "suspect". In the Louise Woodward case in the USA for example some of the most eminent experts in the country appeared for opposing sides and disagreed on the evidence.Parents in family courts usually have to submit to evidence from experts called by social services or by the court and are either not allowed to call their own experts or cannot afford to do so.Social Services call only those experts who agree with them !If exceptionally they stumble on one who disagrees that expert is simply not called and is quietly replaced with someone more amenable! No experts can understand the needs of a child like its natural mother no matter how many degrees in psychology they have,especially if their motivation for their testimony is at least partly financial ! 

There is however another good argument to use against these money hungry charlatans.Their rambling accusations seldom fall within the official definition of emotional abuse as specified by the Ministy of health.

You should get copies of your SS files to see if anything "inaccurate" (to put it politely) has been recorded against you.

5. The social workers often rely on winning their cases on “hearsay”. This means that they tell you what the children have said to them (sometimes on video) and what neighbours and other people have said without ever producing them in court. They say they do this in order to spare the children the ordeal of appearing in court when in fact it is to stop you asking awkward questions which may show up any lies that have been told or pressure that has been put on young children to make them criticise their parents or parent. Often the children desperately want to come to court to tell the truth but are prevented by social services.

6. If you represent yourself, the judge should give you a lot of help. You also have the right to have a friend to sit by you and help you by suggesting questions that you should ask witnesses and making notes of their replies. This is called a McKenzie friend after the first person who established this right. Mention that you will require such a friend when you make your application to the court naming him or her if possible at the time.

7. If the children are old enough you should try to get them to telephone you reverse charges when no one is watching them so you can keep proper contact with them. You can also discreetly give them mobile phones  equipped with sim cards so you can contact them. Unfortunately most social workers, once the children are in care will do everything they can to break contact with you and will even stop you talking about the case with them during those rare closely supervised visits that they allow. It is important that you let your children know that you have not abandoned them and that you want them back at home. You have the right to say what you like to your own children so do not let them stop you with a lot of bluff. If the phones are confiscated children can still go to any public call box(usually there is at least one available in every school),dial 100,choose option 4 and ask for charges to be paid by their parents !.

 Grand parents and any other relations you can think of should be persuaded to apply for regular contact and to receive them for home visits. Such applications should be made to the court. If lawyers are used they should not come from the same county as the one from which the children were taken.

8 Contact must be fought for before,during and after any court proceedings. As a rule SS will gradually reduce contact between parents and children that have been "selected" for foster care or adoption on the grounds that there is a risk that the placements with foster parents or prospective adoptive parents might be undermined.

It is vital that phone contact at least be kept up with older children, and all children must know their parents still love them and want them back. SS will almost certainly have told them the contrary! Any mother who has never harmed her children and  has been served with a section 34 forbidding her any contact at all with the children to whom she gave birth should defy the order at least once !!  .Go to their school and meet them as they come out,and if they are guarded in an enclosed area tell some of the other children to let your children know that you are trying to see them. Jailing a blameless mother for loving and trying to see her children one last time would give SS and the courts such bad publicity that they would be unlikely to risk such extreme measures!

If you do not know where your children are fostered and you know the name and district but not the address, then first look in the phone book and then the voters list available in the library.Brothers and sisters have the human right to keep in contact and if this is denied them go to court to protest the illegality of this ! When they are in contact you only need one to tell you where all the others are! If your child is about to be freed for adoption and the adopters are put in a separate court so you cannot see them or identify them persuade a friend to hang about the corridor tables outside the court room looking busy but ready to follow the adopters to find out who they are and where they live! Do everything you possibly can to avoid losing contact altogether.

9. If you are a parent who is denied proper access by the other parent, try and arrange for the right to take your children for half the school holiday periods or at least once a year so that you have exclusive contact for a short but continuous period rather than frequent contact for only a few hours at a time. Keep applying to the court for this, however often and however many applications it takes to succeed. The point is that if you have the right to take them on holiday or at least to live with you for a specified period and you go to fetch them, you are not kidnapping them and they will probably be anxious to go with you.

If a parent flouts a court order for contact with the other parent then that parent should as a last resort apply for a care order to the court so that care and custody is transferred to the parent aggrieved.Just the threat of this happening can sometimes ensure that both parents have the contact that the court has awarded.

10. Never shout and get angry with social workers;always be very quiet ,calm, and polite ,no matter how much they try to provoke you into showing "character instability". Nevertheless  take NO NOTICE of any advice or instructions that they try to give you, and above all NEVER sign anything they place before you !! Apologise profusely each time for "doing what is best in the interests of your children" and smile sweetly WITHOUT getting angry or above all violent.You can serve your interests much better by making repeated court applications for return of your children from care, refusing to sign adoption papers when this is proposed, and repeatedly asking for more contact for your children  from grandparents,aunts, uncles, cousins and their own brothers and sisters (if they have been split up ) by numerous court applications that you and your relations make individually by filling in simple forms with the help of one of the Clerks at the court. Your one advantage over the social services is that you are concerned only with your own children while they have any number of cases to deal with so that if you keep dragging them into court, supported by solicitors and barristers who cost them money, they will give up and return your children as often as not.

This is one  tactic I employed for mothers who came to me for help when I was an active member of Kent county council years ago and was known for helping parents recover their children from the clutches of social services. Until they changed the law so that only those with parental responsibility could apply to the court,for the discharge of a care order I was able to apply in person and so effectively represent these parents against my own county council . I never lost a case. These tactics worked better than any other so take no notice of lawyers and social workers who tell you to cooperate with “nice social workers" because in fact you and all the close relatives you can persuade to help you should make their life as difficult as possible by repeating court applications  for better access, and you the parent must keep applying to have the children returned to you.for every  reason you can think of until they just get fed up. They have no right to stop you talking to your children about how much you want them back as the judge never restricts your conversation and only social services do this by bluffing you when they have no right to do so. Tell your children to keep on asking to go home until they are allowed to do so.

http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/p4p/stolen_children_ss.htm

To whoever needs the information needed to challenge social services

 

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

 

Reality:  In fact social services advertise these same children for adoption on many websites such as www.ukkids.info and in magazines such as 'adoption UK' giving first names, photographs, birth dates and characteristics. Essex council has also featured a complete judgement concerning the children featured in the Mail on their website for all to see. In other words the Councils can break secrecy but parents risk prison if they do the same. 

What the secrecy does do effectively is to stop aggrieved parents going to the press or revealing their names (like rape victims can do if they wish). The courts also often issue gagging orders stopping all discussion as indeed they did to Barry Aspinell even though he was an Essex Councillor trying to help a constituent.

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

Reality: In 2000, Tony Blair called for a 40% increase in adoptions. Margaret Hodge fixed targets for local authorities giving beacon status and stars and even large financial rewards (Kent got £21 million pounds for hitting 10 out of 12 targets under a public service agreement) to those councils who were successful. Most social workers are therefore motivated to take children into care with a view to adoption to meet their targets. Government research papers have publicly confirmed this. Judges have admitted in court that it is safer to "go along with social services" rather than take any risks and that is why parents almost never win their children back.

As for foster parents who are lucky enough to live in Slough, they get a tax free allowance of £400 per week per child so a fosterer with 3 or 4 children is very well off indeed and is not likely to encourage the children to return home.

Private special schools according to channel 4 charge the council up to £7000 per week per child so they too prefer to keep the status quo.

 

 

Myth 4 "The welfare of the children is paramount"

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

It is impossible for parents to prove that their children will not suffer emotional harm in the future when these experts swear to the contrary so the unfortunate parents nearly always lose.

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/adoption/adoptionreforms/CLAbulletin2003-04final1.pdf (see page12 tableB) 

http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/p4p/stolen_children_ss.htm    

If social services are starting care proceedings against you, they may not tell you about it until you receive a notice from the court through the post telling you when the first hearing is.If you do not feel able to represent yourself You MUST get immediate legal advice. You MUST get a solicitor who is a member of the Law Society Children's Panel, and specialises in family care work. the solicitor will act on your behalf and may instruct a barrister to represent you in court. You can get legal advice on solicitors from:-

	Government booklet from the Legal Services Commission explaining  Parents and Carers Legal Rights in Care Proceedings. http://www.clsdirect.org.uk/documents/leaflet29e.pdf
	Your Local Citizens Advice Bureau http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/
	FASO  www.false-allegations.org.uk 0870 241 6650 Mon - Fri 6pm - 12pm
	The Law society of England and Wales www.lawsociety.org.uk Tel: 0207 242 1222
	The Law Society Information Line www.solicitors-online.com Tel: 0870 606 6575
	or you can get limited Free Initial Advice by Email from firms of Solicitors listed here

Only employ a solicitor who will promise to fight social services fiercely,call your witnesses and above all allow you to say your piece in court ! Maybe you can persuade one of the sources above to put you in touch with one of those named below ! 

Solicitors and barristers who fight for their clients:-

Solicitors:-

Alison Burt at Bindmans & Partners 020 7833 4433 a.burt@bindmans.com 275 Grays Inn Road London WC1X 8QF

Beth Prince at Steele & Shamash 020 7803 3999 beth.prince@steelandshamash.co.uk  12 Baylis Road London SE1 7AA

Malek Wan Daud - barrister engaged by Bindmans - http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/malek_wan_daud.cfm 020 7993 7890 malekwd@gclaw.co.uk

Bill Bache:

John Batt

Crockett & Co:
http://www.lawyer-guide.co.uk/8107/          

 Barristers who fight for their clients:-       

Andrew Scott (often works with Bill Bache)

Telegraph - Parents Champion

Parents Champion. Telegraph Magazine by Cassandra Jardine. Photographs by Neil Drabble. February 11th 2006. 'The Barrister Andrew Scott is drawing plaudits ... www.fassit.co.uk/parents_champion.htm - 48k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Sarah Harman

Park Court Chambers:
http://www.parkcourtchambers.co.uk/practice-areas/family.asp

 - Valerie Sterling:
http://www.parkcourtchambers.co.uk/profiles/Valerie-Sterling.asp
 - Joanna Dodson:
http://www.parkcourtchambers.co.uk/profiles/Joanna-Dodson-QC.asp

Yes it's difficult to get hold of "the best" but search google for the name you have selected, or consult the law society so that even if your first choice is not available their office may be able to recommend someone sincere in your area who is willing to act for you!

Crusading Journalists in the family courts:-

Camilla Cavendish (The Times) 

Cassandra Jardine (TheTelegraph)

Melissa Kite (TheTelegraph) 

Stuart Wavell (Sunday Times)

Nick Cohen (The Observer)   

John Sweeney (CHANNEL 4)      

Fiona Barton(Daily Mail)

Denise Robertson (tv) 

MP's who are "on your side"

Eric Pickles 

Anne Widdecombe 

John Hemming 

2 SPECIMEN FORMS TO MOUNT CHALLENGES TO SS EXCESS UNDER HRA 1998,

TO PERHAPS INCLUDE ON YOUR EXCELLENT WEBSITE, FOR AGGRIEVED PARENTS TO USE. 

KIND REGARDS, 

YUSUF

1. A SPECIMEN FREE-STANDING APPLICATION TO BRING UK PROCEEDINGS UNDER s7 HRA1998

– use this if a FINAL CARE ORDER HAS BEEN MADE, otherwise in ongoing care proceedings use Form C2.

 

NB. As it may be argued that a free-standing application is not a family proceeding it may be better to lodge this Application using Claim Form N1, under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, but LINKING it to a CA 1989 Application for Contact and/or Discharge of the Care Order, using Form C2, which secures appointment of a Guardian for the child/children.

 

FORM TO USE: N1 CLAIM FORM (CPR Part 7), download a blank copy from HMCS website as a PDF Document

 

                                                            IN THE _____________ COURT                   CLAIM NO.____________

 

CLAIMANT:                    [ Applicant Mother/Father/Child]

DEFENDANT:               [ Name of Local Authority]

 

Brief Details of Claim :    [The Mother] applies under s 7 of the Human Right Act 1988 for Orders requiring [name of Local Authority] ‘the Local Authority’ to return the [child/children] to the care of [the Mother]

 

Value : Nominal and punitive damages are claimed in just satisfaction to name and shame this local authority and publicly expose its blatant impunity.

                                                                                                            AMOUNT CLAIMED : £ 1 000, 000 - 00

 

DOES OR WILL YOUR CLAIM INCLUDE ANY ISSUES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998?    Yes

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: use specimen below to help you to compose your own

 

1. [Parent’s name,] ‘the Applicant Mother/Father’ [delete as apt] applies under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 6, 7 & 8, for injunctive relief requiring the Local Authority to return the [child/children] to the care of [the Mother].

 

2. The [child/children] are the subject of care order(s) made on [date] by [HHJ name judge] in the [which] county court.

 

3. Following the making of the aforesaid care orders, the Local Authority rehabilitated the [child/children] to the care of the [Mother].

 

4. On [date] without prior notice to the [Mother] the Local Authority removed the [child/children] from her care and in to foster care where the [child/children] presently remain[s].

 

5. The Local Authority claims that the [child/children] had suffered non-accidental injury whilst in the [Mother’s] care.

 

6. [The Mother] denies the claim, and/ maintains that if the [child/children] were injured or abused in any way whilst in her care then she was not the perpetrator and the injury or abuse did not involve any failure to protect on her part.

 

7. In the circumstances the Local Authority has acted and/or proposes to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right contrary to section 6 of the Human Right Act 1998 in that:

 

(a) The removal of the [child/children] is an unnecessary and disproportionate interference in the right to respect for family life.

 

(b) The removal occurred without the [Mother] being sufficiently involved in the decision-making process.

 

8. In the circumstances the Local Authority’s actions and its proposed retention of the [child/children] in foster care is in breach of Articles 8 with 6 of the convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

 

9. In the circumstances, the [Mother] is a victim of the Local Authority’s action within the meaning of section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

10. The [Mother] seeks an Order in the following terms:

 

(a) that the Local Authority by its officers, employees or whoever otherwise be required by injunction:

           

(i) to return the [child/children] to the [Mother]; alternatively,

 

(ii) to devise and implement [in consultation with [eg the Guardian / name of expert] and subject to further

     injunctive direction of the court, a plan for the rehabilitation of the [child/children] to the [Mother], and,

 

(b) that the Local Authority be restrained by injunction until further order from pursuing any plan to identify an adoptive placement for the children

 

11. Further, the [Mother] seeks such other orders or other relief within the jurisdiction of this court as may be necessary or as the court may think fit given its range of powers under BOTH the CA 1989 and the HRA 1998.

Statement of Truth etc….    

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

2. A SPECIMEN FREE-STANDING APPLICATION TO BRING UK PROCEEDINGS UNDER s7 HRA1998 –  use this when CARE PROCEEDINGS ARE STILL ONGOING, i.e. whilst Interim Care Orders are being renewed monthly

 

NB. Lodge this Application using Application Form C2, under the Family Proceedings Rules 1991,rule 4.3,  LINKING it on the SAME FORM  to a CA 1989 Application for increase in Contact and/or Discharge of the Care Order, which secures appointment of a Guardian for the child/children

 

FORM : C2, APPLICATION FORM, download from HMCS website as a PDF Document

 

 

                                                            IN THE _____________ COURT                   CLAIM NO.____________

Statement of Truth etc…

 

1. The [Mother/Father or as the case may be] applies under Human Rights Act 1998, sections 6, 7 & 8, for injunctive relief requiring [insert name of the Applicant Council] ‘the Local Authority’ to amend its Care Plans in respect of [name child/children] who is/are the subject of the present proceedings. This application is issued without prejudice to [the Mother/Father’s] main case which is that care orders should not be ordered in respect of the [child/children].

 

2. The Local Authority has acted/proposes to act in a way which is incompatible with Convention Rights contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in that:

(a)  The care plans in these proceedings in respect of the [child/children] provide for the Local Authority.

[i] [eg to find Adoptive placements for the [child/children];

            [ii] [stipulate other disputed element in the care plan] and,

(b) The Local Authority would not, in the event of its being granted care orders in respect of the [child/children], either:

[i] [set out desired elements in care plan, eg] attempt to rehabilitate the [child/children]  to the Mother; and / or alternatively;

            [ii] identify and place the [child/children]  in the present or some other foster placement in the long term.

            [iii] [set out other desired elements in care plan].

 

3. The present care plans, if implemented as the Local Authority proposes, would be incompatible with the right to family life which is duly established under Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article 6 of the European convention for the protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms 1950 enjoyed by the Mother [and the child/children/and the Mother’s other children/ other members of the family or as the case may be] as follows;

(a) [The Mother and the child/children] [and name others necessary] would – either wholly or substantially – be deprived of their established family life and mutual enjoyment of each other’s company including contact.

(b) [The Mother would lose any legal status as parent in respect of the [three] children.]

(c) [set out any other alleged incompatibilities]

(d) Such an outcome would not be in accordance with the Law or necessary in that;

[i] The prospects for a future successful rehabilitation to [the Mother] are, in fact, sufficiently high so as not to displace the presumption under European Law that a care order is to be regarded as a temporary measure to be used to reunite the family as soon as practicable;  and,

[ii] Even if the [child/children] are not to be rehabilitated to [the Mother], the advantages of enjoying the enhanced opportunities for contact with their [Mother/Father/siblings/others] offered by any likely foster placement are either such that adoption is not in the [child’s/children’s] interests or alternatively such as to make the circumstances not so exceptional that adoption should be pursued.        

 

4. In the circumstances, the [Mother] and the [child/children] would be victims of the Local Authority’s proposed action within the meaning of s 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

5. In the event of care orders being made in respect of all or any of the children, the mother seeks an Order in the following terms pursuant to s 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

(a) that the care orders be interim orders only. And,

(b) that the Local Authority by its officers, employees or howsoever otherwise be required by injunction to devise and implement, in consultation with the Children’s Guardian and subject to the further injunctive direction of the Court, a Plan for the rehabilitation of the [child/children] to the [Mother]. Alternatively,

(c) that the Local Authority by its officers, employees or howsoever otherwise be required by injunction to use its best endeavours to either:

[i] maintain the [child/children] in their present foster placement in the long term; or,

[ii] identify and place the [child/children] together in an alternative long-term foster placement. And, further,

(d) that the Local Authority be restrained by injunction until further Order from pursuing any plan to identify an adoptive placement for the children unless it shall first have demonstrably exhausted the possibility of any long-term foster placement. And, further,

(e) that pursuant to s 34 of the Children Act 1989, the Local Authority permit the [Mother] and the child/ren to have reasonable contact with each other pursuant to their established family life [ insert desired Order for contact], or in such other terms as the Court may think fit.

 

6. Further, the [Mother] seeks such other Orders or other relief/remedy within the jurisdiction of this Court, given its range of powers under BOTH the CA 1989 and the HRA 1998, as may be necessary or as the Court may think fit

A SPECIMEN FREE-STANDING APPLICATION TO BRING UK PROCEEDINGS UNDER s7 HRA1998 –  use this when CARE PROCEEDINGS ARE STILL ONGOING, i.e. whilst Interim Care Orders are being renewed monthly

 

NB. Lodge this Application using Application Form C2, under the Family Proceedings Rules 1991,rule 4.3,  LINKING it on the SAME FORM  to a CA 1989 Application for increase in Contact and/or Discharge of the Care Order, which secures appointment of a Guardian for the child/children

 

FORM : C2, APPLICATION FORM, download from HMCS website as a PDF Document

 

 

                                                           IN THE _____________ COURT                     CLAIM NO.____________

Statement of Truth etc…

 

1. The [Mother/Father or as the case may be] applies under Human Rights Act 1998, sections 6, 7 & 8, for injunctive relief requiring [insert name of the Applicant Council] ‘the Local Authority’ to amend its Care Plans in respect of [name child/children] who is/are the subject of the present proceedings. This application is issued without prejudice to [the Mother/Father’s] main case which is that care orders should not be ordered in respect of the [child/children].

 

2. The Local Authority has acted/proposes to act in a way which is incompatible with Convention Rights contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in that:

(a)  The care plans in these proceedings in respect of the [child/children] provide for the Local Authority.

[i] [eg to find Adoptive placements for the [child/children];

            [ii] [stipulate other disputed element in the care plan] and,

(b) The Local Authority would not, in the event of its being granted care orders in respect of the [child/children], either:

[i] [set out desired elements in care plan, eg] attempt to rehabilitate the [child/children]  to the Mother; and / or alternatively;

            [ii] identify and place the [child/children]  in the present or some other foster placement in the long term.

            [iii] [set out other desired elements in care plan].

 

3. The present care plans, if implemented as the Local Authority proposes, would be incompatible with the established right to family life under Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article 6 of the European convention for the protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms 1950 enjoyed by the Mother [and the child/children/and the Mother’s other children/ other members of the family or as the case may be] as follows;

(a) [The Mother and the child/children] [and name others necessary] would – either wholly or substantially – be deprived of their established family life and mutual enjoyment of each other’s company including contact.

(b) [The Mother would lose any legal status as parent in respect of the [three] children.]

(c) [set out any other alleged incompatibilities]

(d) Such an outcome would not be in accordance with the Law or necessary in that;

[i] The prospects for a future successful rehabilitation to [the Mother] are, in fact, sufficiently high so as not to displace the presumption under European Law that a care order is to be regarded as a temporary measure to be used to reunite the family as soon as practicable;  and,

[ii] Even if the [child/children] are not to be rehabilitated to [the Mother], the advantages of enjoying the enhanced opportunities for contact with their [Mother/Father/siblings/others] offered by any likely foster placement are either such that adoption is not in the [child’s/children’s] interests or alternatively such as to make the circumstances not so exceptional that adoption should be pursued.        

 

4. In the circumstances, the [Mother] and the [child/children] would be victims of the Local Authority’s proposed action within the meaning of s 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

5. In the event of care orders being made in respect of all or any of the children, the mother seeks an Order in the following terms pursuant to s 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

(a) that the care orders be interim orders only. And,

(b) that the Local Authority by its officers, employees or howsoever otherwise be required by injunction to devise and implement, in consultation with the Children’s Guardian and subject to the further injunctive direction of the Court, a Plan for the rehabilitation of the [child/children] to the [Mother]. Alternatively,

(c) that the Local Authority by its officers, employees or howsoever otherwise be required by injunction to use its best endeavours to either:

[i] maintain the [child/children] in their present foster placement in the long term; or,

[ii] identify and place the [child/children] together in an alternative long-term foster placement. And, further,

(d) that the Local Authority be restrained by injunction until further Order from pursuing any plan to identify an adoptive placement for the children unless it shall first have demonstrably exhausted the possibility of any long-term foster placement. And, further,

(e) that pursuant to s 34 of the Children Act 1989, the Local Authority permit the [Mother] and the child/ren to have reasonable contact with each other pursuant to their established family life [ insert desired Order for contact], or in such other terms as the Court may think fit.

 

6. Further, the [Mother] seeks such other Orders or other relief/remedy within the jurisdiction of this Court, given its range of powers under BOTH the CA 1989 and the HRA 1998, as may be necessary or as the Court may think fit.

                  

DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED INTO SILENCE BY THREATS FROM SOCIAL SERVICES  !!!!
You can make public your own name, your childs identity, and all the circumstances of its' removal, as long as you do NOT reveal anything to the press or public at large that happened in the family court or any documents used in the court, or the name of any witness called by the court.

http://www.fathercare.org/munby19-3-04.htm 
(See paras 81 and 82 especially 82 (v) )

Since that case para 251 section62 of the children act 2004 now allows you to show all documents and discuss EVERYTHING with family,friends,advisors,and any number of INDIVIDUALS! Only the press and "sections"(groups) of the public are still not covered by the new exemptions.

I can only finish my advice by repeating that you and your relations should file repeated court actions by the dozen, as many and as often as possible. Never give up !

Good luck to all of you