Introduction

 STOP social workers  acting like police and leave crime detection to the real police !!

STOP these bullies snatching thousands of children at birth for “risk of emotional abuse”(predictions of future disasters that probably will never happen:) and STOP the family court judges giving away every year thousands of these babies  to strangers for “forced adoption”;

If we must have social workers they should be there to help and support problem families and never never appear as adversaries in a courtroom .That is the function of the police who are there to detect crimes such as abuse or neglect of children and should never be any part of the duties of genuine social workers whose real job should be to help parents not snatch their children.STOP “Punishment without crime” !

Contact IAN:-(Monday -Friday 9am-5pm if at all  possible!) Leave me your phone number or phone me at 0033607939352 and ask me to ring you straight back so I pay for the call !(I will NEVER ask you for any money!) Emails alone cannot answer the questions I need to ask !Do tell me at least the basic information; how many children you have ,how old they are and with whom they are living !Please use regular email to scan and send vital papers or letters ;or fax documents to 0033493220967(This number is a fax line only and does NOT receive phone calls )

 See also 3 videos by bbc,itv,and channel 4 on this site http://www.forced-adoption.com

PLEASE WATCH THESE FABULOUS VIDEOS !!

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

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

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

  3. See the programme below on Channel 4 News

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

  4. Ian Josephs speaking at the ‘Children Screaming to be Heard’ conference, London April 2016

    https://youtu.be/d8sukVI0UMM

  5. http://m.france5.fr/emissions/le-monde-en-face/diffusions/15-11-2016_520483=debate on french tv !

Scroll down for the introduction which explains what is wrong,why it is wrong, what can be done to put it right , and also my more explanatory contact details or click on the menu above for any of the other sections you wish to consult.

Main sections to read are “The Introduction”,”Golden rules”,and “What you can do”.

HELLO!!! LET ME
INTRODUCE

MYSELF

 

ianjosephs
Ian Josephs M.A. (Oxon)

tel 0033607939352

STOP PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME !  ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION !

PLEASE READ THE INTRODUCTION THEN SCROLL DOWN TO MY  MORE  EXPLANATORY CONTACT DETAILS !

It was around the year 2002 that I realised that adoption without parental consent (as it was known then) was being carried out despite opposition from parents fighting in court to keep their children.That was  in effect “forced adoption” .I therefore created this” forced adoption” site http://www.forced-adoption.com and the term “forced adoption” has passed into current and popular use in the English language !

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

1:- A steady stream of parents flee the country every year to avoid having their babies and young children taken from them by the State for forced adoption. Social workers,behaving like police , take babies at birth from mothers ,not for anything they have done but for something someone with a “Crystal Ball” thinks they might do in the future !
2:- PERHAPS THE WORST THING OF ALL :-The UK is the ONLY country in the world where Babies are taken at birth for “RISK of emotional abuse”
Yes it really is true  as  most of the mothers who phone me complain because  social workers acting as though they were police but with no authority to do so, snatch babies at birth from the hospital for this hypotheticalRISK of emotional abuse” .Social workers by acting in this way  are claiming to read the future with neither Crystal ball nor tarot cards or even simple tealeaves !This is I believe the ONLY example in UK law where a law abiding Citizen can be punished in the worst possible way (permanent loss of a child) not for something that PARENT has done but merely because it is thought that there is a RISK !!

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

England: 2011 2015   NSPCC STATISTICS

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

by category of abuse at 31 March.

Category of abuse 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:- family courts in nearly every town up and down the country are overloaded with desperate parents fighting (mostly in vain) to keep their beloved children from fostering or forced adoption;

Hard to believe this happens in UK? Well every single day, dozens of babies are taken at birth following a prediction of future risk by  social workers and their “experts” .This happens despite the fact that by far the worst risk a court can usually take is to put a child into State care as nearly half such children end up in jail or as prostitutes !UK police have been seen in various videos telling screaming children of the 5-12 age group that they have orders from the court and have to take them away. In fact that was the excuse of the German  SS  but it did not save the worst of them from the gallows ! Sometimes wicked orders must be disobeyed and UK police should refuse to kidnap screaming reluctant children.

Even worse, not dozens but hundreds of babies are taken every year  from their law abiding mothers for mere future risk,(usually from verbally abusive partners,often long departed or in jail !) and handed over  for expensive fostercare or forced adoption in the UK!

Too many children taken into care??

At a recent packed public debate at Bristol’s main family court, two of the country’s most senior children’s social care professionals said “YES”!. “The number of children in public care is, I would contend, a national disgrace,” said Dave Hill, president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS). They were especially exercised by what they saw as a postcode lottery. “You can go to many parts of the UK and find local authorities where children who have experienced significant harm are being kept within their families or in their local networks, quite safely, with strong, targeted family support or early help services,” added Anthony Douglas, chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) – while elsewhere, children suffering equivalent chaos are being taken straight into care.

And what about the children themselves?!

Well, when children of school age are taken into care they are gagged and usually are not allowed to testify in court that they want to return home even when begging to do so. Laptops and mobiles are confiscated to isolate them from family and friends. At parents’ contact visits children in care are not allowed to discuss their cases, say they want to go home, complain of sexual or physical abuse by fosterers or social workers or even speak their own language if they are foreign. If they do any of these things contact is stopped.Murderers and rapists in prison are treated much better than those children as convicts are allowed to phone out and speak to  their visitors about anything they like in any language they choose.

http://vardags.com/family-law-news/forced-adoption-portugal-human-rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child protection dominates work

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CHANGE THIS SITUATION ?The only remedy is new legislation on similar lines to the following:-

1:-No Punishment without Crime. Children must never be removed for simple “risk” (of something that may never happen)

Children must never be considered for removal from their parents unless a parent has been convicted in a criminal court of a serious crime against a child or children.If a parent is charged with such a crime the child or children may be removed temporarily but returned if the parent is acquitted.

2:- Parents and children must never be legally gagged

Restore absolute freedom of speech and public protest as already exists in the USA;. Parents must be allowed to identify themselves and protest via the media if their children are taken from them.When children are in care they should be allowed free discussion with relatives and friends,and given  mobile phones if of an age when they can use one.They should be allowed to speak their own language (if foreign) to parents and others.All allegations of abuse in care should be investigated by police and never ignored.Parents must have the right to call their own children to court as their witnesses (Article 6 human rights act ) irrespective of age.

3:-Always allow some form of contact between non criminal parents and children..

Parents not guilty of crimes against children must never be deprived of  face to face contact with their children; but even if they have been convicted of such crimes (providing those offences do not include child sexual relations or violence towards their own children) they should then still be allowed to initiate indirect contact by phone,email,or post . Non molestation orders should only have effect if a parent molests a partner ,spouse or child ;To molest =to intentionally harass or annoy  (Oxford dictionary) and must not extend to legal  prevention of indirect contact.

4:-Abolish forced adoption !

Forced adoption = adoption despite active opposition from parents via the courts and other forms of protest.The UK is the only country in the world in which babies can be taken at birth for “risk of future emotional abuse” and then forcibly adopted despite law abiding mothers begging to keep them !.

HOW TO BRING ABOUT THE ABOVE CHANGES ?

All major changes are brought about by parliament as only MPs can bring about changes in the law by their votes in the House of Commons. They will only do this if public opinion is strong enough to cost them votes and possibly their seats if they do not comply;Most  MPs advertise in local press and on the internet their surgeries to hear grievances from constituents at least once a month. Parents should press for changes in the law at these meetings  with their own MPs.Do not as a rule plead your own case as most MPs will refuse to interfere with the courts but cannot easily refuse to discuss changes in the law that you suggest.Also write letters to all the National and also local newspapers that you can think of cutting and pasting the above  paras or writing your own versions if you prefer. If enough pressure is brought in this way the law will eventually be changed.

Mother has SIXTEEN babies taken away from her: Shocking case revealed as number of newborns removed at birth and put into care soars by 150% in five years

  • Woman lost 16 babies one after another and is still of child-bearing age;The judges refuse to give her a chance to keep even one of them Under a supervision order;
  • Study shows dramatic increase in babies being removed by the courts
  • In 2008, a total of 802 babies were taken into care, rising to 2,018 in 2013
  • Education Secretary Nicky Morgan called for the end of the ‘cycle of failure’
  • Cameron orders blitz of failing social services where children are at risk 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3359073/Mother-16-babies-taken-away-number-newborns-removed-birth-soars-150-five-years.html#ixzz4M02LfJqF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Tragedy of 4,000 babies placed on ‘at risk’ register… before they’re born

  • New figures mark a 13per cent increase over two years deemed at risk of physical or emotional negligence
  • Campaigners said to put unborn children on register presumes parents will be negligent

By Martin Beckford and Stephen Adams

Thousands of babies are being put on ‘at risk’ registers by social workers before they are even born, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

And campaigners say the system is weighted to presume that parents will be unable to adequately care for their children.

New figures released under Freedom of Information laws show that more than 4,000 child protection plans – which are automatically implemented for those registered as at risk – were initiated last year in England for babies still in the womb, which represents a 13 per cent increase over two years.

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

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

 

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04470.pdf  = VERY COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS COMPILED FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY

  1. Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk
  2. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35064228
  3. Child protection register statistics: England: 2011 – 2015 –
  4. .‘Huge rise’ in newborn babies subject to care proceedings – BBC News

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35088794

    JUDICIAL COURT STATISTICS (page 26)

    In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.
    Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?

    Judicial and Court statistics 2011 – Gov.uk

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

    Thorpe admits the parents are prejudiced by the courts if the proceedings take place after removal of their children by social workers(which of course happens more often than not !)

    Sad admission of disgracefully biased court procedures in our much praised UK judicial system

     

IF  you missed them at the beginning ,here is another chance to see the 3 fabulous videos made by the BBC, ITV,and Channel 4 news!

Watch the BBC film   ‘Families flee UK to avoid forced adoption’. Inside Out was broadcast on BBC One South East on Monday, 6 October 2014. Rachel Royce reports.!
Here’s the link to share this: https://forced-adoption.com/#insideout.

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

  2. See the programme below on Channel 4 News

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

  3. Ian Josephs speaking at the ‘Children Screaming to be Heard’ conference, London April 2016

    https://youtu.be/d8sukVI0UMM

: Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform  our  family courts and social services all on one page !

http://www.forced-adoption.com

lawrence

CONTACT IAN !
http://www.forced-adoption.com

I will give free legal advice and other help to ANY parent (or grandparent) ha>ving problems with social workers who are removing or threatening to remove  children for fostercare or adoption. Unlike legal aid lawyers I usually advise parents to fight  the”SS” childsnatchers every step of the way !

Please give me a contact phone number from any country in the world no matter where you live. (MOBILES ARE OK !) and times available to receive a call. I will IF YOU ASK ME then phone you back at my expense.(Use a public phone box if you do not wish to reveal your number). This site http://www.forced-adoption.com is full of information that is useful to help parents whose children have been taken.Maybe have a quick glance through before phoning.

Alternatively,telephone me in Monaco:0033607939352 I am British but I live and work abroad. (From USA dial 01133607939352) ,I offer  free legal advice!  Monday – Friday 9am-5pm  when possible!Other times are ok if really urgent,but My wife says “PLEASE LEAVE HIM ALONE ON SUNDAY so he can have one day with his family !!” Remember to ASK me, and I will ring you straight back at my expense!(USUALLY THE SAME DAY).Please therefore leave your phone available and switched ON 9am-5pm because it is very frustrating for me to continually get voicemail  when I am trying to give you help and advice !

My services are FREE .I will NEVER ask you for money!

Please use regular email to scan and send vital papers or letters ;or fax documents to 0033493220967(This number is a fax line only and does NOT receive phone calls)Remember that the only really important documents are those written by the judge so most of the rest of the rubbish in your files can be thrown away.For my replies, I type emails with one finger so in complicated cases I prefer where possible to telephone you as it takes a lot less time to advise you this way ! To send me details of your case in advance email me to ian@monaco.mc I do not accept attachments  unless agreed beforehand as they often contain viruses sent by those who dislike what I do .

If you have already emailed me and are “following up” please try and send your next email and all subsequent emails on the same long email so I can refresh my memory of the whole story with one easy read !

Please understand that when I do contact you by phone I shall have to question you in detail to find out exactly why the “SS” say you are not fit to be a parent. The only way I can properly defend you is to know all about their case.I will insist on” yes” or “no” answers to my questions and sometimes sound more like a prosecutor than a friend but believe me I will always be on your side, eager to defeat and frustrate the hated “SS” !

Also please do not try to contact me via skype, facebook,twitter,texts ,or any similar source .I usually manage to answer all emails or phone messages within 24 hours and they alone keep me incredibly busy with no time to check for alternative ways of communication !!

If you send me details of your case in advance,please try to stick to simple facts,numbered 1,2,3,etc in date order, not opinions,.Tell me how many children you have ,how old they are,if the ss are threatening to remove your baby,child,or children,or when they were taken,and what reasons were given by the judge or magistrates or SS for removing them or threatening to remove them  ;Start with the PRESENT and what is happening now and then describe what the judge decided in the last court case (if there has been one);Don’t waste time going long into the past as it’s the present that counts and what you now wish to achieve that is really important!

Remember always that “adoption” is a wonderful,wonderful,thing if it is truly voluntary but it is a wicked, wicked crime if forced on parents desperate to keep their children .A punishment almost as bad as execution………

What then is forced adoption ?

Adoption without consent” covers all cases where a baby or young child is adandoned,or parents cannot be found,or where parents who may have ill treated the child do not give consent but do not actively oppose adoption.

FORCED ADOPTION is the adoption of a baby or young child despite opposition from a parent or close family member expressed in the family courts.Generally speaking parents who batter their children or severely neglect them  do not go near a court if they can help it. The vast majority of parents who do go to court pleading to keep the child or children they love plead “We have done nothing wrong ,we have broken no laws we love our children and want to keep them,” but those children nevertheless do mostly go for adoption by strangers because of “risks” of future harm;risks that may never happen; ! That is FORCED ADOPTION……………….

When children are “in care” or given to one parent and forbidden to the other;how can any rational person deny even indirect contact with their kids to to either a mother or father forbidding letters,emails,or phone calls ,and put them in prison for sending a birthday card,or waving at their children as they pass in the street, or even posting happy 21st birthday on Facebook,( Yes I did say 21st !) or worst of all, 3 years jail for meeting at a petrol station…… Poor ,poor,UK .

Government figures tell us that the average cost of keeping a child in a “children’s home” is £2900 per week per child !! More than 3 times the cost of sending Prince Harry to Eton !!
The agencies that find Foster families and adoptive parents for Local Authorities are even more profitable ;One agency founded 15 years ago by two social workers was recently sold for £130 million+ as it was making more than £10million profit per year.
When will the public realise that the whole system is a scam quietly robbing the taxpayers under a veneerof respectability?

product_thumbnail

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

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

Ian Josephs  HLI  20 Avenue de Fontvieille  MC 98000 Monaco

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

These books are also available from Amazon

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM

The text below beginning with “Stop punishment without crime” and finishing with my email address ian@monaco.mc can be used to form a one page pamphlet for distribution to the public: Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform  our  family courts and social services all on one page!

STOP PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME!

25,000+ children are removed every year from UK parents, most of whom have not committed any crimes and who are not addicted to alcohol or drugs. UK Parents are drastically punished  when their young children and newborn babies are removed for fostering by strangers (relatives are sometimes assessed but usually failed and ignored contrary to the Children Act 1989)  or forced adoption. Many are taken for ‘risk’ of future emotional harm;  yet an average of 10,000 children in ‘State care’ go missing every year (all party parliamentary group findings), surely a greater risk? Judgements published on Bailii prove that Judges rely heavily on hearsay (reports from absent witnesses) in family courts that, unlike criminal courts, are secret,do not allow trial by jury, refuse to admit relatives or allow parents to call witnesses, refuse a second expert opinion, quote parents’ previous offences committed 20+ years ago and often forbid parents to contact their own children. A mother, after reporting the father for sexual abuse, was disbelieved and jailed for 3 years for meeting her daughter against court orders. Another mother was jailed for sending a birthday card and a father jailed for waving at his children in care as they passed by in the street.Cases of child abuse or neglect should be dealt with by criminal courts where parents are presumed innocent of such offences unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

STOP GAGGING PARENTS & CHILDREN!

Babies are taken at birth for ‘RISK of emotional abuse’ (often from a long-departed or jailed ex-partner who was violent or who just shouted when angry). Young children are taken into care because of one unexplained bruise or fracture despite no previous history of injuries. Parents are judged on mere probabilities (51%) ‘guilty of abuse or neglect unless proved innocent’ and their children are fostered permanently or adopted. Parents are gagged in court by their own lawyers. They are jailed if they reveal their names when protesting in public and sometimes banned by court injunctions from ever discussing their cases with anyone at all! Children in care are also gagged and usually are not allowed to testify in court even when begging to do so. Laptops and mobiles are confiscated to isolate them from family and friends. At parents’ contact visits children in care are not allowed to discuss their cases, say they want to go home, complain of sexual or physical abuse by fosterers or social workers or even speak their own language if they are foreign. If they do any of these things contact is stopped.

ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION!

‘Forced Adoption’ = the adoption of children against the opposition of parents. After adoption, they are never told where their children are or even if they are alive or dead. Parents are punished for life, but since April (CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014) they can still apply for contact after adoption! In the UK adoption, if contested, must legally be a ‘last resort’, yet most other European countries manage without any forced adoptions, proving that other remedies are always possible. Adverts on the back of a bus offer fosterers £590/week per child, and the National Foster Agency, founded by two social workers a few years ago, was recently sold for £130million+! Children’s care homes cost an average £4,000/week per child and the whole system costs over £2 billion/year!

STOP TAKING THE ELDERLY FROM FAMILIES! 

Judges in the secret Court of Protection (highway robbery!) call tame psychiatrists to decide that old people (many of them perfectly lucid) lack ‘capacity’. Parents are separated from family and friends and forced into expensive private nursing homes. Partners and relatives are ejected from their dwellings then the properties are sold after the elderly persons’ bank accounts have been looted to fund social services, lawyers, courts and dubious care homes. Any person alleged to lack capacity should have the right to call their own medical expert to dispute the allegation and to testify in court to demonstrate capacity if they wish. They should be free to protest openly to the media and if found to have capacity,  should have the right to choose their own carers.

ian@monaco.mc.

http://www.forced-adoption.com

All facts and figures can be verified from government statistics or other official sources.

The text above beginning with “Stop punishment without crime”and finishing with my email address ian@monaco.mc can be used to form a one page pamphlet for distribution to the public: Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform  our  family courts and social services all on one page !

Mother has SIXTEEN babies taken away from her: Shocking case revealed as number of newborns removed at birth and put into care soars by 150% in five years

  • Woman lost 16 babies one after another and is still of child-bearing age
  • Study shows dramatic increase in babies being removed by the courts
  • In 2008, a total of 802 babies were taken into care, rising to 2,018 in 2013
  • Education Secretary Nicky Morgan called for the end of the ‘cycle of failure’
  • Cameron orders blitz of failing social services where children are at risk 

By Matt Chorley, Political Editor for MailOnline

 

One mother has had 16 babies taken into care, a shocking report into the scale of newborns removed from their parents reveals today.

The number of babies taken away from mothers has soared by 150 per cent in just five years, with a third removed from women in their teens.

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan today said the ‘worrying’ figures showed more needed to be done to prevent the ‘cycle of failure’

 The cost of residential care (dept of education)

Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk

 Using the data collected and approach adopted this year we estimate that the average cost of residential care provision per child per week is around £2,900 

  ( SEE PAGE 4 “executive summary)

      1. . The average weekly cost for local authority provision and the average weekly spend on independent sector provision is comparable.
  • The section 251 financial data collection administered by the Department and completed by all local authorities collects information on local authority annual spend on residential care.

Spend on residential care relates to residential homes and boarding schools.2

    1. In 2012-13, authorities across England report spending a total of £997.2m on residential care. They report spend of £329.2m on their own provision, spend of £616.0m on private sector provision, spend of £8.2m on other local authority or health provision, and spend of £43.8m on voluntary sector provision.3
    2. We can divide each authority’s total reported spend by their reports of usage of residential provision in order to gain insight into the average cost and the variation in the cost of this provision.
    3. The depths of Britain’s ‘worst ever’ child care crisis

      Lord Justice Munby

      Lord Justice Munby warns that the child protection system faces crisis Credit:  BRIAN SMITH/TELEGRAPH

       

      In a statement that should have made us all sit up and take note, our top family judge, Lord Justice Munby, last week warned that social workers are now taking so many children into care that our “child protection” system is facing an unprecedented crisis. Since social workers’ failure to prevent the murder of “Baby P” became a major national scandal in 2008, the number of care applications has risen so fast that, by 2015, it had almost doubled, from an annual average of 6,532 to 12,781.

      But this year it has rocketed up again, by a further 26 per cent, to the point where, if it continues to rise at this rate, the annual figure could within three years, according to Munby, have “climbed to 25,000”: nearly four times its pre-Baby P level. Already, despite attempts to speed up the process, the courts are becoming hopelessly overstretched, and unless something dramatic is done, the whole system could be facing complete breakdown.

      Strangely, however, Munby went on to suggest that “the reasons for this are little understood”. In fact, as I have been reporting here for six years, one reason for this explosion in child-snatching is more obvious than any other; and Munby’s failure to recognise it on this occasion is particularly odd, because he himself has more than hinted at it in his own trenchant judgments as president of the Family Division since 2013.

      The only way this immense social disaster could be halted would be to ensure that social workers and the courts return to their proper role under the law, whereby they stop tearing families apart for no good reason

      This is that, in over-reacting to the Baby P fiasco, social workers have become astonishingly trigger-happy, removing far too many children from their parents for wholly inadequate reasons. And chilling light is shed on this by two more sets of statistics. The first, published by the NSPCC, shows what has happened under the four legal justifications for removing children from their families. Between 2006 and 2015, cases where children were taken into care for “neglect” rose by 88 per cent, in line with the overall trend. Despite the supposed increase in concern over “physical abuse” post-Baby P, these cases rose by only 20 per cent. Cases involving sexual abuse of children scarcely rose at all, from 2,300 to 2,340.

      But by far the largest increase, a staggering 278 per cent, has been in cases where it was alleged that parents were exposing their children to “emotional abuse”, a charge much more open to subjective interpretation than the others. And even this is misleading, because it makes no distinction between real emotional abuse, for which at least some evidence can be produced, and the much more speculative claim that children might be exposed to the mere “risk” of emotional abuse some time in the future.

      The number of children in state care stands at its highest since 1989 

      The number of children in state care stands at its highest since 1989  Credit: ALAMY

      Since 2009 I have followed in detail literally hundreds of cases where children have been taken into care for what appeared to be questionable reasons. And in the vast majority of them, as where a mother has her baby snatched from her arms in the delivery ward, or loses her children simply because she herself had been in care (and is therefore deemed unfit to bring up a child of her own), the only excuse given for removing a child is that it might face the “risk” of emotional abuse. No need to show that such abuse has actually taken place. Simply a social worker’s opinion, far too often accepted by the courts, that this might happen in the hypothetical future.

      The other set of figures, produced by a University of Central Lancashire study based on Freedom of Information requests to 114 local councils, showed that, since Baby P, there has been a huge increase in the number of cases where social workers have intervened because of “concerns” raised by teachers, health visitors, doctors or members of the public that something suspicious might be going on, even if this may be only a small bruise on an arm or a neighbour overhearing a mother and father shouting at each other. Thanks to such “referrals”, according to the study, social workers investigated no fewer than one in five of all children born in 2009/10.   But again, many of the cases I have investigated over the years were set off like this, leading to tragic outcomes where social workers successfully based their case almost entirely on those initial ill-founded suspicions, without having to produce any further evidence to support them.

      If Sir James Munby really wants to avert the catastrophe he warned of on Tuesday, and to restore this horrifically corrupted system to some semblance of justice, humanity and common sense – as he has shown many signs of wishing to do – he has no alternative but to identify this major cause of the problem.

      The only way this immense social disaster could be halted would be to ensure that social workers and the courts return to their proper role under the law, whereby they stop tearing families apart for no good reason and concentrate just on those families where their intervention is genuinely justified.

      When a bath is dangerously overflowing, the first thing one needs to do is turn off the tap.

  1. THE CASH RACKET EXPOSED !

    The sad thing is that the sort of parents who really mistreat,assault,or neglect their children rarely go to court to try and keep them ! That sort of person will usually give  courts a very wide berth !

    No ,the “SS” take children from nice happy law abiding families whose parents love them enough to go through months and sometimes years of debilitating court sessions .Surely most of these caring parents should win in court? But nearly all of them of them lose as the stats below prove.

    JUDICIAL COURT STATISTICS (page 26)

    In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.
    Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?

    Judicial and Court statistics 2011 – Gov.uk

    Stats from BAAF:-

    Placements 75% (52,050) of children looked after on 31st March 2015 were living with foster carers 9% (6,570) were living in secure units, children’s homes or hostels 5% (3,510) were placed with their parents 5% (3,320) were placed for adoption 3% (2,280) were with another placement in the community 3% (1,750) were placed in residential schools or other residential settings Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children 2,630 unaccompanied asylum seeking children were looked after on 31st March 2015 – See more at: http://www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/for-what-reasons-do-other-countries-allow-adoption-without-consent/#comment-62844

    The cost of residential care (dept of education)

 

 

  1. Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk

     Using the data collected and approach adopted this year we estimate that the average cost of residential care provision per child per week is around £2,900 !!

    1. www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04470.pdf  = VERY COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS COMPILED FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY
    2. Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk
    3. Child protection register statistics: England: 2011 – 2015 – nspcc

      https://www.nspcc.org.uk/…/childprotection-register-statistics-engl…

    4. Explanation of stats above is that approx 5000 children go missing from care but on average each child runs away (very often back to parents) at least 3 times hence 17,000 reports of missing children !
    5. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/19/parents   (maggie mellon vice chair british association of social workers)
    6. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35088794 Record numbers of UK babies taken at birth !!
    7. Follow the dollar” as they say in New York and there you will usually find the answer ! Only one in 400 care applications is refused by the courts (judicial statistics) Ever Wonder why?1:- Thousands of worthy citizens such as ,social workers,barristers,solicitors,,court appointed experts,judges,cafcass types,fosterers,directors of charities (Barnardos?) and adoption and fostering agencies,directors and owners of special schools,and care homes providing “secure accommodation” etc etc all make a very good living out of it all . The more kids in care the more cash there is to be shared around ! No conspiracies necessary ;just “Birds of a Feather flock together” ! (rather like our MPs fiddling their expenses)
      All bureaucracies grow as fast as they are permitted to do so and the care system is positively encouraged to expand by its eager participants ! Social workers have scorecards to show who can achieve adoptions (mostly forced) in the least possible time !2:-Fostering and adoption agencies make millions in profits as for example the “National fostering and adoption agency” founded by two social workers and then sold on to a highly commercial company for $130,million +! Since then I believe it has been resold again at a huge second profit !3:-Care homes,special schools and similar enterprises charge Councils three or four times the cost of sending Prince Harry to Eton but offer none of the facilities or expertise found at Eton and similar schools so profits in these awful abuse ridden dumps are often enormous !Why should local authorities seek to take more children into care when it costs them so much money? That is a question often posed by social workers on the defensive.
      Well since when did civil servants care how much money they spend if they benefit as individuals with high salaries, all at the taxpayers expense,?Sadly the numbers of kids in care will increase until the public concience is aroused (as it was to abolish slavery,and later kids working in mines and up chimneys);
      Stop punishment without crime,abolish gagging orders, and bring back” free speech” so that parents and children can say what they like to press and public and to each other without being labelled as criminals for doing so.
      This will come about some day but meanwhile children and parents needlessly suffer.

    If there is no physical or sexual violence involved wouldn’t it be better spending some of this money helping law abiding parents to keep their children at home? 

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

    lordslog

    Joint Inquiry into Children Who Go Missing from Care

    Extract (point 9):

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

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

    Foster children go ‘missing’ from care 17,000 times

    • 10 December 2015
    • From the section England
    Child holding adult's handImage copyright Thinkstock

    Image caption There was a 2% increase in the number of children in foster care in 2014-15

    Foster children went missing from care in England more than 17,000 times in a year according to new figures.

    Ofsted revealed 5,060 children were reported as having gone missing while living with foster carers in 2014-15, compared with 4,245 the year before.

    But the total number of instances of children going missing rose from 13,300 to 17,175.

    Ofsted said the numbers were “an issue of concern” but believed better recording may in part explain the rise.

    The South East and London reported the highest percentages of children going missing, 6% and 5% respectively, which “may be linked to the disappearance of children thought to be trafficked into the UK and removed from foster care”.

    Kent County Council, one of the largest local authorities, reported the biggest number of instances of missing children, 792, in 2014-15.

    In England 155 children went missing from foster care for more than 28 days over the year, while 545 were missing for at least a week.

    A further 1,845 were missing from one to six days and 2,515 were missing for less than 24 hours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  2. Child protection dominates work

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

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

  3. “The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent.  That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that ….”
    Councillor Roy Perry, Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Children and Young People Board, said: “Councils work hard to ensure children are settled with Foster

    Foster care and adoptions have become a lucrative business. Whether it should be a business at all is another question.

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

    Foster Care Associates; National Fostering Agency, The Foster Care Agency; Acorn Care and Education, Fostering Solutions, Pathway Care Fostering and Heath Farm Fostering; Partnerships in Children’s Services, Orange Grove, ISP, Fosterplus and Clifford House; Swiis Foster Care; Capstone Foster Care; Compass Fostering, The Fostering Partnership, Eden Foster Care and Seafields Fostering; Caretech

    Foster Care AssociatesFoster Care Associates logo

    Owned by: Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees through Ideapark Ltd

    Income from foster care in 2014**: £127.2m

    Payouts to owner in 2014: £7m

    Highest paid director salary and other benefits: £406,000

    Founded by carers Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees in 1994, (FCA) has become the biggest foster care company in the UK, and even has branches in Finland, Australia and Canada. The assures potential foster carers that it does not have any “shareholders or private equity interests to serve”, but this is only half right. Unlike many of its rivals it is not owned by a private equity firm. But it certainly does have shareholders – principally Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees, through a holding company called Ideapark Ltd.

    The latest accounts of Core Assets Group Ltd (Foster Care Associates is a trading name) show the company paid out £7m in dividends to Ideapark Ltd in 2014, and £11.6m the year before. Ideapark Ltd’s accounts show it only paid out £50,000 to Cockburn and Rees in 2014, but a whopping £9.2m the year before

    nationalfosteringagency

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

    busad2014

    __£590/week per child to fosterers ! Nice work if you can get three at a time!

  4. page !

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

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

    Foster Care Associates; National Fostering Agency, The Foster Care Agency; Acorn Care and Education, Fostering Solutions, Pathway Care Fostering and Heath Farm Fostering; Partnerships in Children’s Services, Orange Grove, ISP, Fosterplus and Clifford House; Swiis Foster Care; Capstone Foster Care; Compass Fostering, The Fostering Partnership, Eden Foster Care and Seafields Fostering; Caretech

    https://corporatewatch.org/news/2015/dec/15/foster-care-business

    Foster Care Associates

    Owned by: Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees through Ideapark Ltd

    Income from foster care in 2014**: £127.2m

    Payouts to owner in 2014: £7m

    Highest paid director salary and other benefits: £406,000

     

    National Fostering Agency (includes the Foster Care Agency)

    Owned by: Stirling Square Capital Partners (previously Graphite Capital until April 2015)

    Income from foster care in 2014*: £94.5m

    Payouts to owners in 2014: £14.4m to Graphite Capital

    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £318,112

    .

    Acorn Care and Education (includes Fostering Solutions, Pathway Care Fostering and Heath Farm Fostering)

    Owned by: Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan

    Income from foster care in 2014*: £73.1m

    Payouts to owners: £13m accrued in 2014

    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £266,420

    back.

    Partnerships in Children’s Services (includes Orange Grove, ISP, Fosterplus and Clifford House)

    Owned by: Sovereign Capital

    Income from foster care in 2014*: £29.8m

    Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.9m

    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: not shown in accounts

    we have not heard back.

    Swiis Foster Care

    Owned by: Dev Dadral and family

    Income from foster care in 2014: £29.4m

    Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.5m (from the wider Swiis group, see below)

    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £169,000

    Capstone Foster Care

    Owned by: Different individuals and companies (see below)

    Income from foster care in 2015: £21.1m

    Payouts to owners in 2015: £406,000

    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £185,000

     

    Compass Fostering (includes The Fostering Partnership, Eden Foster Care and Seafields Fostering)

    Owned by: August Equity

    Income from foster care in 2015: £25.9m

    Payouts to owners in 2015: £3.1m accrued

    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £131,000

    caretech

    Owners: shares are publicly-listed – Farouq and Haroon Sheikh biggest shareholders with 20%

    Income from foster care in 2014: £12m

    Payouts to owners in 2014: £240,000 in 2014

    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £324,000

Education & Family

Foster carers ‘poached with golden hellos’

  • 5 August 2016
ChildImage copyright KatarinaGondova

Image caption There is thought to be a shortage of 9,000 foster families

Large private foster agencies are offering cash incentives to recruit foster carers working for English local authorities – and then charging more for the service, councils say.

Some agencies pay “golden hellos” of around £3,000, but then charge councils more to care for the same child.

The Association of Directors of Children’s Services says the practice is immoral and should be banned.

Foster agencies question the way in which councils cost their own services.

The National Association of Foster Providers also says transfers of foster carers to agencies from local authority employment may happen for reasons to do with the needs of the child.


In-house council provision v private provision

  • A county council in south-east England: £512.06 v £934.97 per week
  • A unitary authority in the West Midlands: £331.69 v £754.28 per week
  • A county authority in south-west England: £556 v £937 per week

Source: ADCS


A recent independent review of residential care by government adviser Sir Martin Narey said that in 2014-15, eight commercial fostering agencies made around £41m in profit.

News story

Adoption target met

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

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

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

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

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

Adoption scorecards and thresholds published

This news article was published under the 2010 to 2015 Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government

The Department for Education publishes the adoption scorecards for 2010 to 2013 and the annual uprating of the thresholds to 2016.

The Department of Education is publishing an update to the adoption scorecards covering the period 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2013. The scorecards were introduced as part of a new approach to address delays in the adoption system, set out in ‘An action plan for adoption: tackling delay’ (March 2012).

Recently, Ofsted published data which showed a 34% rise in the number of approved applications between 2012 and 2013. This is hugely encouraging, but with 6,000 children who have been approved by the courts for adoption still waiting to be placed, we need to go further and we need to go faster. Which is why we’re maintaining such a strong focus on reforming the adoption system and are today announcing that performance thresholds are being raised annually (to 2016) so they reflect the levels set out in the Action Plan for Adoption for 2013 to 2016.

Police forces facing dozens of new performance targets

  • 19 September 2013
  • From the section UK
  •   comments
Home Secretary Theresa May

Image caption The elected crime commissioner scheme was one championed by Theresa May

Police forces in England and Wales have been set 178 performance targets by police and crime commissioners, despite a Home Office vow to cut red tape.

  1.  nspcc

Ministry of justice :- Official Judicial statistics

In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused. What chance did those parents have as (to quote L.J.Thorpe) “parents are so prejudiced in proceedings” ??

NSPCC figures above show that the “baby P factor” is a myth ! Children subject to a child protection plan were over a 5year period as follows:-  Physical abuse+sexual abuse 2009=6400 but 2013=6700 an increase of only4.6% but emotional abuse 2009=9100 and 2013=13640 an increase of 49.8% !! More than double the numbers of physical and sexual abuse combined ! This goes to show that the “SS” have not increased numbers because of baby p and fears of physical or sexual abuse but have nearly doubled those they claim to have been emotionally abused because nobody can properly defend themselves against such an accusation. EASY MEAT………….

 

 

 

OPEN JUSTICE

“Open up the courts “they shout ! Let the public in……. But of course members of the public are unlikely to bother to go.That is NOT the real issue……..
No the real issue is the gagging of parents preventing them from crying to the rooftops when their children are taken identifying themselves and their kids if they wish to do so ,and also the refusal to allow friends ,grandparents and other relatives in the court if the parents wish them to be there.
Freedom of speech is a joke where family courts are concerned and so is justice that cannot be seen to be done even by children’s grandparents or the mother’s new Partner  on the laughable pretext that a newborn baby’s privacy has been breached !
If we believe in free speech and open justice we should allow parents to speak freely to the public naming themselves and their children, and also allow them to invite relatives and friends into court for moral support.

 

___________

Click on the links to watch the BBC and ITV documentaries if you missed them earlier !

1Watch the BBC film   ‘Families flee UK to avoid forced adoption’. Inside Out was broadcast on BBC One South East on Monday, 6 October 2014. Rachel Royce reports.!
Here’s the link to share this: https://forced-adoption.com/#insideout.

2 Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1N9r2Vieg

See the programme below on Channel 4 Newshttp://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

  1. . https://youtu.be/XLU66WvINSA is the link to a 49 minute video called “Russia today” exposing OUR social services and forced adoption!
  2. Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform our family courts and social services all on one page !
  3. Click here for Kidnap of children from their mother by Dutch social services Using Fraud power abuse – YouTube
  4. See more examples of “punishment without crime” and “forced adoption” inflicted on loving parents and their children by UK social services and please tell others of this site http://www.forced-adoption.com .
  5.  http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Kuki-Keaton/dp/B00SCD6DMQ/ref=sr_1_25?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1421591488&sr=1-25&keywords=traffic+dvdThe above is a link  for you to obtain the latest film “TRAFFIC” made by parents of stolen children !
  6. Forced Adoption UK: https://youtu.be/a7TcFWqKja8  A Russian documentary made in English about the injustices of forced adoption in the UK.The uk authorities applied successfully to have this film banned on all official sites !

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uApuCE07HJE&feature=youtu.be

    Above is a link to a video of two pregnant mums I helped escape to France where the authorities welcomed them !

READ ALOUD IN COURT THESE WISE STATEMENTS BY  VERY SENIOR JUDGES !

1:-Note the observation of Supreme Court Judge Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC (para 143):“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs

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

. Maggie Mellon who is the Deputy Chair of the British Association of Social Workers  said:

(https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/9-family-debate-transcript.pdf)

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

Sir james Munby (President of the family courts) also said at the Family Justice Council debate  “The only thing I am confident about is that adoption as we will understand it and practise it in 30 years’ time will bear very little relation to adoption as we practise it today. ”

Also at a speech made to the Society of Editors Sir James stated ..”.with the state’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are  typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in  any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make. When a family judge makes an adoption order in relation to a twenty‐year old mother’s baby, the mother will have to live with the consequences of that decision for what may be upwards of 60 or even 70 years, and the baby for what may be upwards of 80 or even 90 years. We must be vigilant to guard against the risks.”

3:-MR JUSTICE MOSTYN said”PARA 35. The proposition of the merits of adoption is advanced almost as a truism but if it is a truism it is interesting to speculate why only three out of 28 European Union countries allow forced or non-consensual adoption. One might ask: why are we so out of step with the rest of Europe? One might have thought if it was obvious that forced adoption was the gold standard the rest of Europe would have hastened to have adopted it. The relevance of this aspect of the case is surely obvious.”

  1. Link – http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/3388.htm

4:-I also  remind readers of the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions) [2007] 1 FLR 2050:“Many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or ‘model’ them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.”

5:-Lord Templeman inRe KD 1988:

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

22

by Maggie Mellon, BASW Vice Chair (British Association of Social Workers)

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

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

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

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

Child protection dominates work

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

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

 

  1. WHAT OTHER JUDGES SAY :-

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

TEN  QUESTIONS TO ASK FAMILY COURT JUDGES;

1: – Great Britain is the only country in the world where substantial numbers of pregnant women seek asylum in other countries to have their babies safe from UK social services and forced adoption. Yes British mothers are fleeing the country in ever increasing numbers to avoid the adoption of their unborn babies babies.Surely this shows something is very badly wrong?
2 :- Adoption without consent is a last resort when nothing else will do say the legal guidelines but this cannot be true ,since many other countries such as France manage to find other” resorts “and thus never need to use this so called last resort, so why cannot the UK adopt the same remedies as the French for example?
3:-The President of the family Courts in Re J(a child) said that since the abolition of capital punishment the most drastic decision any judge could make was to take a child from its parents.If a sane mother with no criminal record has her baby removed surely she is punished without breaking any laws .Surely punishment without crime is as illogical as it is wrong?
4:-Many babies and young children are taken at birth for eventual adoption from mothers diagnosed with “borderline personalities” and similar mental failings by court appointed experts;Unlike defendants in criminal courts parents in family courts are not allowed to get a second opinion  from a private medical source to call as their witness without permission from the judge;Surely that is a violation of Article 6(Human rights Act) giving persons appearing in  court the right to call witnesses in determination of their civil rights?
5:-Research has shown that Open Adoptions have better results for children than the Closed adoptions used in the UK that break all contact with birth families;If parents were promised at least one annual contact by court order (birthdays or Xmas perhaps?) thus avoiding the heartbreak of no contact at all (letter box being remote and seldom continued) many parents would not go through the agony of contested hearings so would not this be a good thing?
6:- Many babies are taken at birth for “risk of emotional abuse” .Something unique in Europe and impossible for parents to defend against court experts who are usually judged more likely on probabilities to be correct than a distraught mother.When adoption follows due to risks that may never happen( from an ex partner who was violent for example) surely these at least are cases where forced adoptions should simply not be allowed ?
7:-Article 10 (Human rights Act) reinforces our democratic right to free speech.Surely it is a gross violation of  to gag mothers whose children have been taken (for possible adoption) by preventing them under threat of jail from identifying themselves and their children when protesting to the media .Similarly is it not also a violation of Article 10 to gag both children in care and parents during “contact sessions” preventing them from speaking their own language (if of foreign extraction), reporting abuse or injuries received in care,discussing their cases, whispering ,or discussing adoptions,,under threat that contact will be immediately stopped if parents or children break these rules?
8-:In many cases parents who have committed no crimes are forbidden by the family courts to contact their own children directly or even indirectly by email etc.Surely that must be flagrant violation of Article 10 allowing free association when parents are as a consequence  jailed for breaching the order by sending a birthday card or waving at their own children in the street?
9:- Social workers and judges in family courts continually emphasise the need to keep the names of children whose cases are before the court confidential  to protect the children’s  privacy.Parents or others who breach that secrecy are jailed. There is however one exception;namely the “adoption industry” .When the family courts decide that forced adoption is the solution for children all thoughts of privacy go out of the window.Children with first names ,photographs and character descriptions are advertised like pedigree dogs for potential adoptive parents to select the children they want. Surely these double standards are utterly hypocritical?
10:-They say money makes the world go round and this certainly seems true of the fostering and adoption industry. A poster on a bus in Suffolk offers £590/week per child to anyone willing to Foster .Very nice work if you foster 3 or more children  andp to £1000/week if a child has “special needs . Special schools rake in£3000 to£4000 per week per child ,around 5 times the fees at Eton ! Agencies do best of all getting £27,000 for each successful adoption arranged . One of many agencies is The National fostering and adoption agency  founded by two social workers about 15 years ago and sold out last year for £130million+ ! Nice work if you can get it Thousands of others of course just make a good living out of the misery of others  and rigorously defend the system on which they depend .Birds of a Feather flock together with no need for conspiracy but surely we should put and end to this money racket that causes so much unhappiness to the children robbed of the parents they love and the mothers robbed for life of their newborn babies?

 

 

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

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

The case was, he said,

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

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

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

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

a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:- Hearsay if contradicted and challenged by a parent in person must be backed up by factual evidence from the L.A and cannot by itself justify a care order.

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

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

 

TWELVE REFORMS THAT WOULD END THE INJUSTICES:-

1:-NO child should be taken from law abiding citizens ;There should be no punishment without crime ! If a parent is charged with a serious crime the child should be removed but returned if a not guilty verdict is given by the jury..

2:- Forced adoption should be abolished. Definition:- Adoption that is forced on parents who oppose it in court asking to keep their children Most parents who love their children enough to go through months of gruelling court appearances would probably deserve to keep them.

3:- No gagging orders should be placed on parents who must be allowed to protest to the media using their own names when their children are taken .

4:-Parents should be permitted to have a limited number of friends and relatives to support them and to observe their processes in the family court;

5:- No restrictions should be placed on conversations between parents and children at contact and children should be free to report abuse by carers.Freedom of Speech is paramount:-

6:- Parents who have not committed crimes against children should never be forbidden to contact their children by email ,phone,or letter. I repeat that.children in care should no longer be gagged to stop them reportng to parents abuse in fostercare .They should never have their phones and laptops confiscated. They should be free to discuss whatever they like with parents during contact visits ,speaking their own language even if that language is not English !

7:- Parents who are suspected of having mental problems or learning difficulties but who deny having them should be able to consult their own experts and bring them to court with any other relevant witnesses they choose.

8:-Parents should be free to bring their own expert witnesses to testify concerning injuries that may or may not have been non accidental

9:- Children who cannot live with parents should be placed with relatives as the Children Act 1989 specifies. Too many grand parents and other close relatives are wrongly disqualified because they have a close Relationship with one of the parents,because they are “too old” at 55 or even less ,or because they are deemed to be unable to protect the child from a violent parent when eventually he/she comes out of jail!. These are lame excuses for taking children into care and splitting up brothers from sisters etc rather than keeping siblings together with family members

10:-Parents must be allowed to call their own children to court to testify for them especially if they are eager to do so.-As former minister for justice Simon Hughes said “children of age 10+ should be free to come to court IF THEY WISH TO TESTIFY on their parent’s behalf” The United Nations convention on children’s rights confirms all this.

11:- Family courts should pronounce all persons before them innocent of accusations and allegations unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.They should never judge any person to be at fault on the balance of probabilities (51%+)

12:-Domestic violence confined to shouting should not result in confiscation of children .Victims of partners who have actually been convicted of domestic violence should never be penalised by removal of their children as long as they have separated from the perpetrator and taken all possible measures to protect their children from future violence by that person

12 QUESTIONS THAT YOU CAN PUT TO YOUR LOCAL AUTHORITY !

1 :- Can it ever be right to take thousands of babies at birth  from sane law abiding mothers for « risk of emotional abuse” ? If so when?

2:-Research shows that Open Adoption works better than Closed so why do British Family Courts never permit Open adoptions that could allow children at least some contact with birth parents?

3:- Why are law abiding citizens in UK deprived of their children for risk of things that may never happen?Surely babies should only be taken from those who break the laws not those who keep them?

4:- ,Only from UK do hundreds of pregnant mothers flee to Ireland,France,Spain,and N.Cyprus etc to give birth in safety from UK Social Services ;Surely this mass flight of pregnant mothers that happens nowhere else in the world indicates that something is badly wrong?

5:- When UK mothers do flee to other countries  to give birth or to avoid UK Court proceedings for care orders on their children; why do Social Services pursue them and take proceedings in those other countries to retrieve the children for care in UK instead of leaving the foreign local social services  in Ireland, France etc to deal with the situation?

6:-When children are taken into care in UK their lap tops and mobile phones are usually immediately confiscated so that they cannot phone or email family or friends unlike murderers in prison who can do both.How can this limitation on childrens freedom to communicate be right?

7:-When children in care see their parents at contact centres they and their parents are forbidden (if foreign) to speak their own language, to cry,to discuss their case,to report abuse in care ,or to discuss returning home.;unlike murderers in prison who can discuss anything they like with their visitors. How can crushing freedom of speech be right?

8:- Why do squads of 5 or 6  uniformed police arrive so frequently to take screaming frightened children from parents at around 7am from their beds and cart them off to isolation from family and friends?

9:- The number of children taken from parents for physical or sexual abuse has dropped whilst the numbers taken for undefined emotional abuse has nearly doubled in the last five years as a percentage of the whole (judicial statistics).Could that be because children sexually or physically abused make poor adoption material?

10:-Can it be right that social workers who all have adoption scorecards are named and shamed within their own organisations if they do not achieve adoption targets? Surely this gives them an incentive to recommend forced adoptions when other solutions are possible and more desirable?

11: Innocent until proved guilty” has been replaced in the UK family courts by “guilty if their guilt (smacking or injuring their child etc) is more probable (51%) than their innocence”; and as judges usually consider the allegations of social workers to be probably more reliable than the denials of parents the result is that parents once accused are usually found to have neglected or abused their own children.-Surely “innocent until proven guilty” is a fairer standard of proof?

12:-There are many cases in the UK where law abiding parents have been imprisoned for breaching “no contact orders” made by the family courts by waving at their children in the street, sending a birthday card, speaking to them at a chance meeting and even for posting “happy 21st birthday” on the internet.(yes 21st !).Surely such orders should be made illegal when such parents have never been convicted of harming their children?

Children in Care,Family Courts, and Forced Adoption are unecessary modern  inventions !

The proof that social workers take children from parents via family courts  when it is not in the best interests of the child is simple. Over 100,000 children are officially “in care” in the UK following alleged neglect ,abuse,or risk of harm from parents .

This was not the case at all in the 1950s and 60s when children were taken en masse because they were “illegitimate” (born  to unmarried mothers) .Social workers and the family courts were not yet a power in the land.Very few children were then taken for being at risk of harm or similar reasons. When however fashions changed and it was no longer considered a disgrace for unmarried mothers to have a child a yawning gap appeared in the child snatching industry and that gap was filled by inventing reasons for taking children such as” risk ” or “putting the parent’s needs before those of children”Hence the 100,000 babies and young children now in care (and many selected for forced adoption), who were never taken before because in the old days the excuse of illegitimacy was enough to keep the “industry” flourishing and forced adoption did not need to  exist.

3 cardinal freedoms vital to a democracy are gradually being discarded in the UK;

1:- “Innocent until proved guilty” has been replaced in the family courts by “guilty if their guilt is more probable (51%) than their innocence”; and as judges always consider the allegations of social workers to be probably more reliable than the denials of parents the result is that parents once accused are usually found to have neglected or abused their own children.One consequence is that hundreds of pregnant mothers flee UK for Ireland ,France,N.Cyprus etc to stop their babies being seized at birth by the “SS” for risk of emotional abuse !The UK IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD where pregnant mothers continuously flee the country to save their newborn babies !

2:-” Freedom of Speech” has been completely discarded in the family courts and been replaced by gagging orders on parents who have had their children removed and also on those same children who are forbidden to tell their parents at contact of the shocking sexual and physical abuse they receive in fostercare or in “children’s homes”;Parents who see their children at contact are forbidden to show emotion,to discuss their case or to say they miss their children and want them back home.Murderers ,rapists,and even serial killers in jail are allowed to phone out to their families and to discuss their cases and anything else they like with visitors .Children in care aged around 5-12 are routinely denied these same rights so they are treated worse than the most violent criminals even though they have done nothing wrong at all !
I myself acted as a Mckenzie friend in one case helping a parent forbidden to contact her only child.As a consequence I have been given a lifetime ban from speaking to anyone about that case ever again otherwise I will be immediately jailed !

3:-“Freedom of movement and communication” has also been partially discarded so that we have seen parents (who have previously never been convicted of any crime) jailed for sending a birthday card or waving to their children as they passed by in the Streets.Breaching a court order that mothers ljke “vicky haigh” (whose name I can mention because her case was raised in parliament) must never comunicate by letter,email,fax,or telepone and certainly never meet face to face with their own children because a court has ordered them not to do so.Why? Because judges found it more likely than not that mothers coached their daughters to make allégations of sexual abuse against their own fathers;Even if true,the cutting of even indirect contact punishes the child even more than the mother..
Baby P’s mother was of course allowed to see her surviving kids in jail and has now been released and given a new private identity at huge public expense thanks to her excellent relations with social workers…You see she was politicallycorrect………………

RISK:- The “SS” and family court judges  continually refer to  the risk to children of future physical or emotional (their favourite !) abuse as a reason to take babies and young children from their parents and put them into care with a view to adoption by strangers.Apart from healthy scepticism that these “worthies” can predict the future,the worrying thing is that one of the very greatest risks a child can run is to be put into care! Government statistics reveal that nearly half the prostitutes on the Streets were in care at one time,nearly half British born prisoners in jails were in care in their youth,and although there are no official stats it is common knowledge that most Young girls who have grown up in care are pregnant when they leave. aged only 16……

In addition the psychological damage of forced separation from the parents they love (often by squads of uniformed police) is often horrific as the link to the article below shows.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/lesleygarnerlifeclass/3541393/Lesley-Garners-Lifeclass-Ive-never-got-over-being-put-into-care.html

Contact with children in care.

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

Supervised contact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Marques is encouraged to bring board games with her etc that she and Luke might enjoy playing during contact.

Ms Marques should not discuss issues relating to the ongoing court proceedings. If in any case Luke brings up the subject himself she is to encourage him to discuss these issues with his social worker and/or guardian.

Ms Marques should not make reference to herself and her current situation if this will result in Luke feeling worried/guilty about ” mum being on her own”.

Ms Marques is to make reference to Lukes father and paternal side of the family in a positive way at all times.

Ms Marques is expected to make reference to all professionals involved with Luke in a positive way.She is to encourage Luke to be open and trusting of these professionals.

If Ms Marques feels anxious/unwell she is expected to seek help from her GP and /or her mental health key-worker. Lukes social worker is to be notified of this as soon as that is possible. If in any case contact is to be affected, then Ms Marques is expected to make contact with Lukes social worker immediately.

Ms M is expected to keep to all the points made in this written agreement.

If Ms Marques fails to keep to any of the expectations as set out by this written agreement; it is made clear that the contact supervisor has been instructed that contact is to be stopped, and Ms Marques will be asked to leave.

The Local Authority will also review the contact arrangements and amend them as necessary to promote and ensure Lukes welfare and safety.

This is not a legally binding document and all relevant parties are encouraged to seek legal advise if they wish to do so.

Any changes to contact will take place only once an updated written agreement has been drafted and signed by all relevant parties.

———–

OUR OBJECTIVES

Our main objectives must be to persuade the UK government to abolish “FORCED ADOPTION” and stop “PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME”. We have laws in the UK and those who break the laws are rightly punished. Unfortunately those who do NOT break the law are also punished and that makes the whole idea of the law absurd ! This applies especially to mothers whose babies are taken away at birth for “risk of emotional abuse” and later adopted by strangers ; Sir James Munby President of the family courts recently described the removal of children from families  as the most drastic matter handled by the courts since the abolition of capital punishment (hanging). Child cruelty should be the business of the police and the criminal courts; in which case all parents would be presumed innocent of child abuse or neglect unless charged with such an offence and subsequently found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a JURY (If longterm separation of child from parent is a possibility)

FORCED ADOPTION

1:- Forced adoption is the removal of a child from its parents without their consent and usually against their will.Systematic forced adoption pursued as a government priority is unique to the UK. EU countries manage without it therefore it is not as claimed a “last resort”

2:-The result is that the parents lose all contact with the child usually for the rest of its life and never know if it is alive or dead.

3:- This can happen to parents who have never been convicted of any crime because they are thought to pose a risk to a child in the future

4:-Mothers frequently have their babies removed at birth for “risk of emotional abuse” .A prediction difficult for anyone to disprove.

5:- This also happens to citizens of the EU when visiting the UK so that their children are forcibly adopted by persons speaking a different language and living a completely different culture and a different religion even when these parents have committed no criminal offence.

6:- This also happens to UK citizens visiting other EU countries where they give birth but are subsequently pursued by the British authorities who make care orders after the departure and persuade the foreign court to allow them to take the baby to the UK for forced adoption .

7:- Forced adoption violates the human rights act article 8 to a private family life undisturbed by public authority and also threatens the basic EU principle of “freedom of movement “ If EU visitors to UK who have committed no crimes risk having their children forcibly adopted.

8:- The solution to this problem would be for the EU authorities to ban on human rights grounds the adoption of children in EU States without the consent of parents( especially foreign visitors) who have not committed any crime that could compromise the interests of their children .

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

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

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

Statutory Instruments

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

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

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

I want every parent, aunt, uncle, grandparent, and whoever else to email every local and national newspaper to let them know what is going on in the UK family court and how the social services and Cafcass are conducting themselves.

To do this, all you need to do is use The UK Newspaper Megaphone where you can mass email the media and get them to report of what is happening in the family courts

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

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

Practice Direction: Committal for Contempt of Court – Open Court

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has today issued a Practice Direction governing the process of hearings for committal to prison, including suspended committal, for contempt of court (link below and copy in body of email). This Direction must be complied with and replaces 2013 guidance which was aimed at the Family Court and Court of Protection, extending it to all civil, family and criminal proceedings. The Directions says: ‘Open justice is a fundamental principle. The general rule is that hearings are carried out in, and judgments and orders are made in, public. This rule applies to all hearings, whether on application or otherwise, for committal for contempt irrespective of the court in which they are heard or of the proceedings in which they arise.’ It requires in all cases where an individual is found to have committed a contempt of court and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or a suspended term of imprisonment that the court making the order must, sitting in public, set out the following: the name of the person; the nature of the sentence; and, in general terms, the nature of the contempt. It also requires these details and a written judgment to be provided to the press and the Judicial Office website. It does so in order to ensure that no one is committed prison without these details being made public. This Direction is made by the Lord Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, following consultation with the Master of the Rolls, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, President of the Family Division and of the Court of Protection, and Chancellor of the High Court.

Link: bit.ly/1NhjEPD

WHO AM I ?  You may well ask…..

Who are you dealing with? and  What do I do? You may wish to know……..

I am not a solicitor or barrister but I do have a law degree from Oxford University.I  am a business man owning and running two language teaching companies :- http://www.hli.co.uk   and http://www.regencyschool.com (See for yourself!)

I was born in London in 1932,I now live in Monaco, and have been happily married to my second wife( who is french) since 1971 ,I have 7 children and 11 grandchildren .I still ski,(badly!) and work harder now than when I was 20!

Unlike most who fight them,I and my family have NEVER been troubled personally by UK social services even when we lived in Kent .Eventually ,we left UK to live and work in Monaco in 1984.However I always detested the arrogant brutality that UK social services showed to those least able to defend themselves.

It all began in 1962. I was on Kent County Council and was asked for help by a mother whose son had, she said had been wrongly taken from her by social workers and put in a very expensive private school (owned by a senior Kent Councillor)where he was paid to sleep with teachers !The authorities tried to “hush the matter up” but after a widely publicised court hearing the boy was  successfuly returned home and I was asked by other parents to deal with similar problems .I therefore applied in the courts for discharge of care orders against my own council for many such parents and never lost a case.

Unfortunately I spent so much time on these cases that my language school deteriorated and my first marriage broke up when my first wife departed leaving me with two young children and a fading business to take care of  ! I then stopped helping parents and concentrated on my business and my second marriage . Both proved successful ! (Happily married since 1971 with Danielle and 5 children together!)

It was in 2003 that the Meadows cot death scandals and adoptions without parental consent exploded into the news and I wrote to the Daily Mail saying things seemed worse in 2003 than they were in the 60s when I was helping parents. I got nearly 50 letters from desperate parents.The law had changed so that I could no longer speak for parents in court,there was also forced adoption, court secrecy,and gagging orders, so I set up my site  http://www.forced-adoption.com and have been dealing with more than 1000 cases per year ever since ! Ihave  financially assisted 50 or 60  pregnant women to escape legally to Ireland France and other places to avoid losing their babies at birth to forced adoption.

————–

Click on the link below to watch Ian Josephs speaking at the Children Screaming To Be Heard conference in London July 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jtLKpwRTF9k#t=223

Remember also that if the “SS” take your child without a court order and without your consent they are acting illegally and can be punished !

ILLEGAL CHILD REMOVAL

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

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

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

Speech by Sir James Munby (president of the family courts) to the Society of editors:- “I have said this many times in the past but it must never be forgotten that, with the state’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make. When a family judge makes an adoption order in relation to a twenty-year old mother’s baby, the mother will have to live with the consequences of that decision for what may be upwards of 60 or even 70 years, and the baby for what may be upwards of 80 or even 90 years. We must be vigilant to guard against the risk”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413373/Top-judges-war-secret-courts-Family-hearings-exposed-glare-publicity.html#ixzz3BLgYgmef Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Yes the sad thing is that social workers were formed to support families and should be welcome callers at any family home.Alas they are now the most hated and feared profession in the UK.A knock on the door from social workers puts fear and dread into the hearts of almost any parent answering it;”Have they come to take our children?” is the first thought of any parent when social workers first come round…………..No such parent would think that a social worker had come to reunite a family in danger of breaking up because they just do not do that anymore.They force couples to separate by threatening to take their children if they refuse to do so ;then when the mothers are all on their own,  they take the children anyway

THE MOST FREQUENT REASONS FOR CHILD REMOVAL FROM PARENTS (INCLUDING BABIES AT BIRTH !)

1:- Domestic Violence  even when restricted to shouting and even when the violent parent separated years agoThe theory is that if children see their parents argue and (God forbid!) shout at each other they will suffer significant EMOTIONAL ABUSE and should be taken away to the illusory safety of the extremely dangerous State care system! .If this rule was applied in Italy there would be no parents left with children at all !Even in the UK ,show me a couple who have been together 3 years or more who claim they never quarrel or shout at each other and I will show you two liars !

2:- Borderline personality disorder or narcissistic traits ! Usually diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist who  habitually gives evidence to the family courts in favour of social services and with few if any private patients.Parents are routinely refused a second opinion and if they get a highly favourable report from a top expert  paying privately it is usually ignored even when it is more up to date .

3:- Hostility and refusal to engage or work with professionals.It is however difficult to work with persons who tell you their intention is to take your newborn baby or young children and give them to strangers for adoption !

4:-A parent who was abused in childhood or who was brought up “in care”  is often deemed to be an unfit parent because of the danger that they had no parents in care and learned nothing of parenthood or that they would in turn repeat the abuse they had suffered as a child by abusing their own children !

5:- A father (and sometimes a mother) with a  criminal record of violence that was against other adults but never against their partner or their children is still judged too much of a danger to care for children even if the offences are several years old;

6:- An untidy house,children who stay up late, or a chaotic lifestyle that does not fit in with the way our politically correct social workers think we should live !

7:-Absences from school or reports from school that a child was heard reporting ill treatment to another child.Such cases are of course worth investigating but never warrant the immediate removal of the child by social services as happens only too often.A child returning from school with a bruise, or a child  accidentally breaking or fracturing a limb is nearly always held to be the victim of an “unexplained” injury,and that soon translates into a non accidental injury for which parents are blamed and the child removed into “state care”( where abuse is commonplace) even when there is no previous pattern of bruises or injuries.

8:-Anonymous tip offs now descibed as “referrals reporting physical or sexual abuse of a child with no further evidence,” that often result in the immediate removal of a child often based purely on hearsay and gossip.

9:- Parents who “put their own needs before those of their children” .A “mantra” that is repeated in a monotone by social workers when they can think of no other criticism of parents to make .A completely meaningless phrase that gives a false sense of superiority to the person making it when really it is just their unsubstantiated opinion.

10:- And perhaps worst of all…… Babies are removed at birth for “RISK OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE”;Yes you read correctly,  Social workers actually do claim to predict the future and for parents it is always a bleak one  when the “SS” consult their tea-leaves or their” crystal balls” ! Gypsies can be quite accurate through generations of practice when they predict your future but social workers and judges?? UGH !Mothers suffer the worst possible punishment inflicted in the UK since hangings were abolished.(That is what the President of the family courts Sir James Munby said in a recent case!)

 

BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND in Re B (a child) House of Lords.

My Lords,

  1. Taking a child away from her family is a momentous step, not only for her, but for her whole family, and for the local authority which does so. In a totalitarian society, uniformity and conformity are valued. Hence the totalitarian state tries to separate the child from her family and mould her to its own design. Families in all their subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and individuality. In a free and democratic society we value diversity and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in all the modern human rights instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights (art 8), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art 23) and throughout the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Justice McReynolds famously said in Pierce v Society of Sisters 268 US 510 (1925), at 535, “The child is not the mere creature of the State”
    CHILDREN’S WISHES MUST BE HEARD

Simon Hughes former Minister for Justice recently said:

I therefore want to announce that it is the intention of the Ministry of Justice, and therefore the government, that we move as soon as is practical to apply in all our family justice proceedings in England and Wales where children and young people are concerned the policy that it will be the normal practice, the norm, that, from the age of 10, children and young people involved in public or private law family justice proceedings before the courts will have access to the judge, in an appropriate way which reflects their feelings and wishes to make clear their views as to what is the best resolution of the family dispute in their interest. Children and young people of 10 and over will therefore be given the chance to make clear their views in person or if preferred in another way. We will also work with the mediation sector to arrive at a position where children and young people of 10 years old and over have appropriate access to mediators too in cases which affect them.

Why 10? It seems to me wrong that a 10 year old in England and Wales is deemed old enough to be criminally responsible yet has no automatic voice in family proceedings in which decisions are being made about them. Children and young people should be involved and be seen to be involved. And if a child younger than 10 years is able to express themselves and wishes to do so then they too should have that opportunity. Though of course we must also recognise that where a child or young person is too vulnerable and needs their views to be represented by others, this also should be the case.

CHILDREN MISSING FROM CARE

The All Party Parliamentary Group for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the All Party Parliamentary Group for Looked after Children and Care Leavers set up an inquiry in response to recent concerns about the care and support that these groups of children currently receive.

The inquiry examined the issues around children who go missing from care and how they can be better protected.

The report outlines why children in care are at risk, finding:

  • there are just over 65,000 children in care in England. Most live in foster care, and 7% live in one of England’s 1,810 children’s homes
  • many of these children have had a difficult start in life, so are vulnerable and easy prey for exploitative adults
  • children in homes are likely to be older, more vulnerable and are more likely to have complex needs
  • an estimated 10,000 children go missing from care every year, many of whom are at risk of being physically or sexually abused or exploited.

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

—– Original Message —– From: “Kathryn Brown” <katybrown198528@gmail.com> To: “Ian Josephs” <ian@monaco.mc> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 11:56 AM Subject: Baby > Hi Ian > > I wanted you to be the first to know: > We pick up our baby today!

Thank you so much Ian. Without your support we would have lost her forever. Am so so grateful to you, truly

Katy

Now what could possibly bother me about social services and the family court system??

Family torn apart in 15-minute court case by Judge James Orrell …

Lord Justice Thorpe said on Appeal “I am completely aghast at this case.There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing,because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.Once you have lost a child it is very difficult to get a child back.” The hearing above lasted only 15 minutes after a doctor “expressed the opinion” that bruising in the ear of one of the three children looked as though it was caused by pinching .The parents were not allowed to give any evidence!Their three children had all been forcibly removed until they were ordered to be returned by Lord Justice Thorpe on appeal.

Here is a list of the main defects !

1:-Forced adoption

2:-Taking children into care for future risk

3:-Gagging parents and jailing them if they protest in public.

4-:Gagging children by retricting conversation with parents at contact to nothing controversial, confiscating mobile phones,computers,and preventing access to any post office.

5:-Refusing parents leave to call witnesses

6:-Choosing experts and refusing parents any say in who is chosen or what questions are asked,with no second opinion allowed.

7 :-Branding parents as child abusers on the balance of probabilities that are often founded on mere unproved allegations ,pure gossip or other hearsay .

8:-Lawyers who advise clients to” go along” with social services even when adoptions are planned

9:-Punishing parents and children by separating them even when no crimes have been committed.

10:-Refusing entry to the court to grandparents,step-parents,and close relatives of the parents.

11:-Children taken from parents for alleged “emotional abuse” or risk of it.

12:-Telling wives to split from their husbands(and vice versa) otherwise they will lose their children(when they intend to take the kids anyway).

13:- One bruise,burn,or fracture,the parents are blamed, and the child is taken away;”one strike and you’re out!).If however children complain about sexual abuse and /or severe bruising in fostercare they are disbelieved(despite photos) and ignored as are their parents. A very fair” baker’sdozen” I reckon !

? Grimsby Police Abduct A 10 year Old Girl – YouTube There comes a time  like the above when soldiers,policemen,and the like have a duty to refuse to obey an order that is against human rights or is a crime against humanity….

My child was taken by three armed police and a social worker. They pulled this terrified child (who was  screaming) from my body and was carried  out by the arms. They held my neighbour in the basement of our house at gunpoint.  I did not know where this child was for five days but that this frightened youngster neither ate nor slept. My poor child tried to run away when we were in a foreign country and the foster carers refused to ever foster again as they were so distressed.   My darling child was shaking like a leaf and kept  writing letters begging me to return to me which were given to me,  one million pounds in lawyers later and this child is with a paedophile and has not been seen by me for three years. My child disclosed to a psychologist, the police, a GP and myself and my father. There was medical evidence all ignored.  My child showed foster carers a very sore bottom after seeing the father but was told adoption would result  if he didn’t go and live with father.

The police bruised both arms when they carried out my poor child who threatened suicide in foster care but still they forced this childto give up both mummy and home, move to UK and never see any  friends or family again. This child  is told he cannot call me mum and that a stranger is now the mother , has no contact with anyone  known before other than four short calls a year on speaker phone to me.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD AND JUDGES LIKE HON MRS X…….! Why are they punishing us and our children. All because we dared to report a crime, try to safeguard our children and love them. For this we are jailed, tortured by the system and watch our children being destroyed whilst powerless to help them.

There is constant talk of change but our children are with paedophiles for their childhood! Nothing is changing. Another day of abuse because they dared to disclose. My child says on the abe who is going to make this stop? The police woman says we can’t make anything stop. Who else does he ask?

On 6 Apr 2014, at 13:35, Vicky Haigh <vhaigh@live.com> wrote:

my daughter was snatched like this too but by social workers and she cried and cried saying “my mummy’s coming soon and we are going to have tea together”. e. A big black man and strange woman took her and reported that she cried the whole 23 miles to her paternal grandmother’s house where she cried all weekend then the next time I saw her she had mouth ulcers and cold sores all over her mouth.

It is barbaric this treatment. She was told if she agreed to see daddy she would see mummy more. The rest is history as I haven’t seen her for 3 and a half years.

I hate theses people and hope that they rot in hell.

They have ruined my life and took a little girl’s mummy away from an innocent child
Christopher Booker writes in the Sunday Telegraph 15/6/2014.
Many people will have been amazed by the story of Maureen Danby, the 72-year old grandmother given a three month prison sentence after police produced CCTV footage showing her and her 18-year old granddaughter running to embrace each other in a pub car park. The granny, who lives in Orkney, had travelled down to Derby to meet her beloved granddaughter, in defiance of a court order which since 2007 has only allowed them to have “supervised contact” by telephone once a month.  The girl, said to have a mental age of only nine, is so unhappy in “care” that according to Mrs Danby she has run away 175 times. She was forbidden to see her father again after he was jailed for roughly restraining her from “running into a busy road when she was having a temper tantrum”. He has twice more since been in prison, once for waving at his daughter when he saw her in a passing taxi on her way to school.  Martin Cardinal, the Court of Protection judge who sentenced Mrs Danby, said “I am sure this grandmother needs restraint”. It was Judge Carcinal who last year made news when it was revealed that he had secretly jailed Wanda Maddocks for removing her 80-year old father from a care home in which he had been put by social workers, where he was so ill-treated there that she feared for his life.  Of all the disturbing features of our “care” system, one of the most chilling is the draconian restrictions it imposes on contact between children and loving parents or grandparents who have not harmed them in any way, If they are allowed to meet at all, it is usually in a grim council “contact centre”, where every word is noted by a “contact supervisior”, watching for any breach of the rules which can stop the “contact” dead. ` I have several of the contracts family members must sign, before being allowed these”contact sessions”. One is 23 clauses long. These severely limit or forbid any show of affection by either side. Conversation must be limited only to “everyday matters”, such as how the children are doing at school. Virtually nothing the bewildered children want to discuss is allowed. Totally prohibited is any reference to why they are in “care”, what is to happen to them or how they are being treated (in one case, where a distressed 11-year old girl told her parents that she was being sexually  abused by a member of the foster carer’s family, they never saw her again). No reference can be made to the courts, social workers or any other “professional” involved in the case. Particularly forbidden is any “whispering”. Where foreign children are in care, they and their parents are forbidden to use the language they speak at home, When a Lithuianian grandfather recently flew to London to see his grandson, he was merely allowed one five-minute exchange on Skype, using the only three words of English he knew, “I love you”. Where no contact is allowed at all, the punishments for breaching this can be astonishingly severe. I have half a dozen cases where mothers were jailed simply for waving at their children when seeing them by chance in the street. I recently reported on the mother, still in prison after her desperately unhappy 13-year old daughter had run away from a care home where she was being physically ill-treated, The mother rang the police, but was careful to have no direct contact with her daughter, until the police begged to her to go in to calm the girl down in her brother’s house, where she was screaming and sobbing. For this the social workers persuaded a judge to jail her for six months. But the real mystery about this is where the courts and social workers think they have the legal authority to act in this utterly calllous and inhuman way, If any lawyer can tell me precisely which law allows them thus to trample on one of the deepest natural instincts human beings know, I would be very grateful.

See also a landmark case where both parents had bad criminal records and previous domestic violence but still recovered their baby from care !

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

I can only repeat the simple solution needed to reform our so called “child protection” system ………… NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME, end punishment without crime, finish punishment without crime,abolish punishment without crime,scrap punishment without crime,see that no parents are punished by child removal if they have not broken the law protecting children …………. Do away with “PUNISHMENT WTHOUT CRIME” !!

Here’s a video of me explaining my position on forced adoption and the gagging of both parents and children .

http://punishmentwithoutcrime.wordpress.com/about/

OR CHANNEL 4 TV:-

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

 

http://www.thewhocarestrust.org.uk/pages/the-statistics.html

The statistics

It’s by no means a given, but children who spend time in the care system are less likely than other children to achieve academic success or benefit from stable relationships.

They are more likely to have problems with crime, drugs and mental health than their peers.

  • When they leave primary school, 43% of children in care will have reached the national curriculum test level expected for their age – compared with 74% of all children.
  • Almost one third of children in care leave school with no GCSEs or vocational tests like GNVQs.
  • Only 13.2% of children in care obtain five good GCSEs – compared with 57.9% of all children.1
  • Only 6% of care leavers go to university – compared with 38% of all young people.2
  • One third of care leavers are not in education, employment or training – compared with 13% of all young people.3
  • More than one in 10 children had three or more placements in 2010. 4
  • 23% of the adult prison population has been in care and almost 40% of prisoners under 21 were in care as children (only 2% of the general population spend time in prison).
  • A quarter of young women leaving care are pregnant or already mothers, and nearly half become mothers by the age of 24.5

HOW TO USE THIS SITE !

1:-If you want to learn about the tyranny of social services and the family courts in the UK READ ON !

2:-If social services are already bothering you or even threatening you CLICK ON  ABOVE MY PHOTO AND SKIP STRAIGHT TO THE GOLDEN RULES !

3:-If the “SS” have already taken your children or grandchildren skip straight to the golden rules and the list of contacts plus how to represent yourself ,then turn to the section “get your children back” and note the parts that apply in your case.

There are a lot of lunatics and fanatics on the “web”.SO Please note that EVERY case I quote has appeared in a national newpaper and all the figures that I feature originate from statistics issued by government bodies or officially recognised government sponsored charities. I draw your attention to facts that are not disputed; though my theories on how we should deal with those facts certainly will be contested by outraged protests from those involved in the highly profitable “care” and “adoption” industries. !

Captured Live on Ustream at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/alltalkradio-net

 

.

Forgive me if I repeat myself too often in this “exposé” of the “SS” and the family courts,but the average person simply cannot believe that such things happen in “democratic Britain”.Well,believe me they do! Repetition is necessary to reinforce your belief ! I have found in practice that I HAVE TO REPEAT THE SAME TRUTHS AGAIN AND AGAIN BEFORE READERS REMEMBER THEM AND ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEM.That is why you will keep coming across the same reminders of the same appalling injustices many times at different points in this narrative.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1308117/I-stolen-mother-The-deeply-disturbing-truth-forced-adoption.html

Social workers often grumble that I only listen to one side of the story and that from parents who are not truthful.

That is why a very important point is that after I HAVE SEEN THE POSITION STATEMENT OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I START OFF BY ASSUMING EVERY FACT THE SS RELIES ON IS TRUE and then ask myself if even then it justifies breaking up a family or worse still forbidding parents from having any contact (face to face or indirect) whatever with their children under pain of imprisonment ! . The answer in the sort of cases above that I receive when parents contact me is nearly always NO ! Why are the parents who ring me to complain that social services have taken their children nearly always right? Because they have very rarely been charged or convicted of an offence against children and PUNISHMENT without CRIME is always WRONG !

If on the other hand I or a journalist like Christopher Booker  ask the local authority for “their side”  of the story in any forced adoption or fostering case their usual response is to rush off and apply to the court for an injunction forbidding any person from discussing or seeking information about the case from any source ! Not very encouraging for anyone trying to get both sides of the story !

http://johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/   httpp:/johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/

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

Christopher Booker writes in The Telegraph   April 2nd 2016.

Politicians won’t see the dark side of adoption

It is not often this column half agrees with our social workers, but when the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, comes up with yet another government attempt to “fast-track” the speed with which children in “care” are adopted, and a Community Care poll shows that this is strongly opposed by 69 per cent of social workers, it is hard not to.

She is only doing this, they claim, because she wants to save money; and they believe that such relentless pressure to speed up adoptions is not in the children’s “best interests”. I have quoted before what was said last year to a conference by Maggie Mellon, deputy chairman of the British Association of Social Workers: “The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period with horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the Thirties, Forties and Fifties… that was done because it was felt it was the right thing. But now we think, how on earth could we possibly have done that?”

It is true that the record number of children now in care, 69,540 in England alone, is higher than at any time since the 1989 Children Act, while placements for adoption fell in 2015 by 24 per cent to 7,320. But the reason for this dramatic fall was two trenchant judgments in which our top family judge, Sir James Munby, excoriated local authorities for their failure in too many instances to make a proper case that adoption is in a child’s best interests. What, of course, ministers never admit is that, too often, there is no good reason for children to be taken from their families at all. Nor do they address the tragic fact that too many children then suffer far worse treatment in “care” than anything alleged against their parents as the excuse for removing them.

In December, Ofsted published new figures showing that in 2014/15 the number of times children went missing from foster care rose by 20 per cent, to a record 17,175. Many times in recent years I have reported on such cases, as when children manage to escape back to the loving parents from whom they had been removed, only to be forcibly returned by the police to the foster home they dreaded. It is true that adoptions do reduce the ever-rising cost of fostering, now estimated by the Commons Library at £36,524 a year for each child.

In my local paper recently, Bath and North East Somerset Council was offering foster carers “£600 a week” per child. And greatly adding to these costs are the lavish fees charged by fostering agencies, usually run by ex-social workers, such as Foster Care Associates, which in 2015 paid its senior director £406,000, or the National Fostering Agency, sold in 2012 to an “equity firm” for £130 million, which last year earned £94.5 million from local authorities for making their fostering arrangements, earning its highest paid director £318,112.

Until our politicians face up to the dark side of what is going on in our horribly corrupted “child protection” system, we can only echo Lord Justice Munby’s hope that, in 30 years’ time, “adoption as we understand it” will “bear very little relation to adoption as we practise it today”. But for now our ministers just press blindly on, wilfully oblivious to the massive scale of a disaster for which, ultimately, they more than anyone else are responsible.