25,000+ children in the UK are taken from their parents every year by UK secret family courts.Elderly people in large numbers are forcibly separated from relatives and put into expensive nursing homes by the secret Court of Protection.What is a democracy? It is surely a country allowing the right of its citizens to protest publicly if they feel oppressed by the State; Elections are no guarantee. Hitler was legally elected, but soon suppressed any public opposition or protest. In the UK secret family courts take newborn babies from their mothers for “risk of emotional abuse”, give them for adoption to strangers, and JAIL any parent going to the media to protest! Similarly elderly folk are snatched from caring relative home is in a particular county council area. Let us get on and create these agencies and make sure more adoptions take places by the court of “Protection”, and put into expensive private nursing homes, their bank accounts are then looted and houses sold (ejecting their relatives) to pay the fees! If relatives protest to the media they too are JAILED.How democratic is that?
To read the full DfE statistical release, click here.
An analysis of the English Looked After Children Population
The government produces an annual statistical report of the numbers of children that are looked after by local authorities as at the end of March. This comes from the SSDA903 return produced by local authorities. They compare this number to the number of children adopted from care each year. That, of course, is a statistical error as they are comparing numbers of children to numbers per year. However, it is worth looking in a bit of detail at the numbers anyway: The total number of children in looked after by local authorities (apart from short term placements) as at 31st March 2015 was 69,540. Of those 19,850 were voluntarily in care under S20 placements. 290 were in the youth justice system. That leaves 42,030 under interim or final care orders – I assume that also includes an EPO, 20 “freed for adoption.” That means they were identified as needing adoption by 30 December 2005 and still have not been adopted. (See A&S v Lancashire County Council for an example of this). 7,320 had a placement order for adoption (which was the system introduced in 2006). 40 were “detained for child protection”. This is what people call police protection (or sometimes a police protection order). Hence we have 19,850+290 who are not really in the target for adoption. Another way of looking at the looked after population is by age. 3,710 babies (under 1), 10,120 infants (under 5), 14,310 5-9 year olds, 26,140 10-15 year olds and 15,270 children over 15. Sadly the table A1 in the Statistical First Release does not distinguish between those on S20 and those not on S20. Let us now consider the children adopted. That is table E1 in the SFR. 5,330 children were adopted from care. 230 were babies, 4,050 infants, 990 5-9 and 60 10-15. There was at least one child over 16 adopted from care. Unsurprisingly it is mainly under 5s that are adopted (that is why I get the department to do a special analysis of the under 5s on care orders). If we consider the figures for under 5s we have 13,830 children under 5 in care as at 31st March and 4,280 children being adopted. Expressing the proportion as a percentage (which is is not because of different dimensions in numerator and denominator) it is 31%. That, of course, is a lot more than the government’s oft quoted 7% figure. It is always going to be rare to get an adoptive family for a child over 10 (60 adoptions, 41,410 children looked after). It is going to be unusual for children between 5 and 10. (990 adoptions, 14,310 children looked after).
Adoptions in year to March 2014 rose by 26%
Number of looked after children in England and Wales continues to rise slightly
The number of looked after children in England and Wales continues to rise, according to the latest figures released by the Department for Education. There were 68,840 looked after children at 31 March 2014, an increase of 1% compared to 31 March 2013 and an increase of 7% compared to 31 March 2010. The numbers have increased steadily over the past five years.
More children started to be looked after. There were 30,430 children who started to be looked after during the year ending 31 March 2014, an increase of 5% from 2013 and an increase of 8% from 2010.
More children ceased to be looked after. There were also 30,430 children who ceased to be looked after during the year ending 31 March 2014, an increase of 6% from 2013 and an increase of 20% from 2010.
Adoptions are increasing. There were 5,050 looked after children adopted during the year ending 31 March 2014, an increase of 26% from 2013 and an increase of 58% from 2010. Although the number of looked after children adopted fell between 2010 and 2011, the number of these adoptions has since increased and is now at its highest point since the start of the current collection in 1992.
In November the Department published a ‘myth-buster’ guide because of a fall in adoptions in recent months.
 Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): Last year saw record numbers of adoptions and prospective adopters, but there are still more than 3,000 children in care waiting to be adopted, with half of them having waited for more than 18 months. What plans does my right hon. Friend, who has a strong commitment on this issue, have to enable more children to be placed in a loving, stable family home sooner rather than later?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. Speeding up the rate at which adoptions take place, and making sure more adoptions can take place, is absolutely key to giving more children a better start in life. In the past three years we have seen a 63% increase in adoptions, so we have made progress. In the Gracious Speech and in the Bill being published today there are the plans to create regional adoption agencies, bringing together the many agencies there are in this country. I think that is right because it matters far more that a child gets a loving home than whether that home is in a particular county council area. Let us get on and create these agencies and make sure more adoptions take place
Alas the David Cameron seems determined to grab as many children as possible from unwilling parents in order to increase the number of adoptions.No mention of desperate non criminal parents losing their precious children to the care of dubious strangers……
The DfE statistical release is here.
What our judges forget when they send children into care
When vulnerable youngsters are cared for by the state, they are too often neglected and abused
In Leicester recently a jury was shown a 93-minute police video of a 14-year-old boy describing how, after being taken by social workers into care, he was for three years subjected by a care worker to sexual abuse so horrendous that he repeatedly pleaded for help from other members of staff. His pleas were ignored. He finally went to the police, who shot the video but did nothing. Shortly afterwards, the boy hanged himself with a curtain cord. Only when his “carer” was charged with 10 offences did the prosecution produce in evidence the video on which the police had failed to act.
Last week five men were given life sentences for raping, torturing and sex-trafficking six girls – one as young as 12 – over six years. Three girls were in council care. Their “carers” not only ignored the girls’ pleas for help but also connived in what was going on. Remarkably similar stories have recently come from Rotherham, Derby and Rochdale, also involving the systematic abuse of young girls in care that social workers encouraged to continue.
One victim of the Oxford case, Jane, appeared in last Monday’s Panorama: Kids Lost in Care. This described the horrific experiences of several children removed from their families and placed in care. One distraught couple described how their grand-daughter had been moved 13 times to different care homes in two years, and how their pleas to her social workers were repeatedly ignored, until days after running away again from one home she was found dead of a drug overdose. The film ended with Jane, who had been sold for sex on the streets of Soho while in care, observing of those charged with looking after her: “They’re meant to be responsible for innocent and vulnerable children. To put them in a situation where they are even worse off than they were to begin with is confusing. A lot of this wouldn’t have happened if they had done their job properly.”
Since the start of 2008, when the “Baby P” scandal was in the headlines, applications by social workers to take children into care have more than doubled, from fewer than 400 a month to nearly 1,000. In England alone, 67,000 children are now in care. Yet many are so unhappy that, according to the police, some 10,000 a year “go missing”. Having followed hundreds of such stories in recent years, few things have struck me more forcefully than the number of children taken from their families, often for the most dubious of reasons, who then, in “care”, report abuse and ill-treatment far worse than anything alleged against the parents from whom they were removed.
Such is the other half of the equation of what goes on behind the scenes of our “child-protection” system that too often gets overlooked. It is one thing to take children from their parents for no good reason. But just as tragic is the fate of far too many children when they enter the murky underworld of state care. Of course, there are times when it is right for the state to intervene on behalf of children who are being genuinely abused. Of course, there are good foster carers, and nothing could be more heart-warming than those cases where children removed from a cruel and dysfunctional home find a new life with loving adoptive parents.
TACT concerned at sharp rise in special guardianship orders
Charity believes that record adoption figures are concentrated on younger children
TACT, the UK’s largest charity specialist provider of fostering and adoption services, has expressed concern at the further sharp rises in the use of special guardianship orders revealed by the Department for Education’s latest statistics concerning children in care in England.
Those statistics show that the use of SGOs in England has risen 20.2 per cent from 2,770 to 3,330. Between 2010 and 2014 the figure has increased 158 per cent (in 2010 there were 1,290 SGOs).
TACT has been a strong supporter of the use of SGOs which can give children who have been in care the security and stability they need to thrive. Once an SGO is made the child will no longer be looked after. However, this sharp rise might indicate that the use of orders is extending beyond the original intentions.
TACT CEO Andy Elvin said:
“SGOs were introduced to allow young people stability and permanence. We are, however, worried that this dramatic rise indicates that they are being increasingly used inappropriately. TACT is aware of foster carers being asked to consider special guardianship shortly after a placement is made, or placements being made only on condition that an SGO is part of the care plan. SGOs should only be considered when the time is right for carers and the young person.”
The statistics also show an increase of 26 per cent to 5,050 in the number of children adopted (2013: 4,010). However, this growth is almost entirely due to the numbers of one to four year olds adopted (76 per cent of all adoptions). Numbers for children older than this have remained static. This demonstrates that the government’s adoption reforms are having an impact, but only for younger children.
Secretary of State for Education, Nicky Morgan, said of the increased adoption rate:
“Today’s figures show a significant and sustained rise in the number of adoptions – an increase of 26% in the last 12 months. This means thousands more of our most vulnerable children are finding the loving and permanent homes they so desperately need.
“We also promised to remove delay and frustration from the process for both children and adopters. Today’s figures show that we are delivering on that promise. The system is working more quickly, as well as providing more support to families after an adoption has taken place.”
Children are spending less time in care waiting to be adopted, with the average length of time between a child coming into care and being placed with their new family down by 2 months.
TACT is concerned that 38 per cent of care leavers are not in education, training or employment (NEET). This underlines the importance of the recently introduced staying put scheme, allowing care leavers to remain with their former foster carers until they are 2
Issue Government STATS
In the year 2011 to 2012, over 600,000 children in England were referred to local authority children’s social care services because of concerns about their welfare.
——————— Looked after children – key facts
- 68,110 children were being looked after by councils on 31 March 2013 – 0.6 per cent of all children under the age of 18 in England. • The majority (62 per cent) were being looked after because of abuse or neglect. • 6 per cent of those being looked after were under the age of 1 and 20 per cent were aged 16 or over. • The number of looked after children increased by 12 per cent between 31 March 2009 and 31 March 2013, which meant councils were looking after more than 7,000 extra children. • In 2012/13, councils spent an average of £137 a day, or just over £50,000 for the whole year, supporting each child they looked after.
Source: Audit Commission analysis of statistics published by the Department for Education (DfE) on the number of and expenditure on looked after children
Outcomes for adults who have been looked after
• About 23 per cent of the adult prison population have been in care.
• Around a quarter of those living on the street have a care background.
• Care leavers are four or five times more likely to commit suicide in adulthood.
• A quarter of care leavers were pregnant or young parents within a year of leaving care.
• 36 per cent of 19 year olds who were looked after at the age of 16 were not in employment, education or training.
Source: Still Our Children: Case for reforming the leaving care system in England Briefing for House of Commons Report Stage of the Children and Families Bill, Barnardo’s, May 2013
Bills and legislation
Legislation about child protection is covered in:
CHILDREN LOOKED AFTER AT 31 MARCH 2013 There were 68,110 looked after children as of 31 March 2013, an increase of 2 per cent compared to 31 March 2012 and an increase of 12 per cent compared to 31 March 2009. The number of looked after children has increased steadily each year and is now higher than at any point since 1985. The majority of looked after children – 62 per cent in 2013 – are provided with a service due to abuse or neglect. The reasons why looked after children are provided with a service have been relatively stable since 2009. Figure 1 shows the reasons for a child to be provided with a service and the proportions of children looked after recorded in each category as at 31 March 2013.
The figures above apply to England and if we add in Scotland ,N.Ireland,and Wales there are nearly 100,000 children in care in Britain.It is worth noting that the colour chart below shows that 1% of these children ie nearly 1000 were taken purely because their parents had a low income and for no other reason!
Figure 1: Reasons why children looked after at 31 March 2013 were provided with a service
BALLOONS AND FAMILY FUN TO PROMOTE FOSTERING
Hundreds of balloons will be released from Slough town centre to mark a special event to launch Slough’s new fostering Allowance Scheme.
Saturday, July 2 2010 will encourage more people to consider becoming foster parents to local children and see the launch of a new fostering allowance of £400 per week.
A web-based survey of 5,000 Fostering Network members in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (with a 20% response rate) found that 35% of carers had experienced an allegation of abuse. A Scotland study reported similar results with 31% of respondents claiming that an allegation had been made against them.
2014 payment now £590 per week per child!Most fosterers double this by taking in two children ! As advertised on the back of a bus….
And who will that young boy with the kite attract?
Despite all these wonderful descriptions of overpaid foster carers, 10,000 children went “missing” from care, as you will see from the article below:
Joint Inquiry into Children Who Go Missing from Care
Extract (point 9):
In June 2012, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the APPG for Looked-after Children and Care Leavers published the report of their joint inquiry into children who go missing from care.
The report argued that the Government was under-reporting the number of children going missing from care. While the official figure for 2011 was 930, the report argues that, according to police data, an estimated 10,000 individual children went missing. The report cited that this high number was symptomatic of a care system which was far from being fit for purpose and in need of an urgent rethink.
For the full report click here
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”?
Increased number of children in care
By Katherine Sellgren
BBC News education reporter
28 September 2011
The number of children in care in England has increased slightly from 64,400 last year to 65,520 this year.
Department for Education data shows 27,310 children were taken into care during the year ending 31 March 2011, down from 28,090 the previous year.
The Agency below was founded around 12 years ago by two social workers……………..
———- STOP PRESS !The agency above has been sold for £130+million!
Who else makes the profits you may well ask? All this expenditure;why would they do it? The L.A can’t profit from it. , Well of course the local authority don’t make a profit but when did the civil servants ever care about that? No it is those who make a good living out of the system who make the money ! The judges,the barristers,the solicitors,the so called experts (doctors,psychiatrists,psychologists and others( described by Professor Jane Ireland in her report for the government as hired guns),the foster carers, and of course the “agencies”(who recruit fosterers and adoptive families) like the N.F.A founded a few years ago by two social workers and sold for £130million+ ! Even that is chickenfeed beside the profits made by private children’s homes and care homes that charge exhorbitant fees for “looking after” children and old people respectively,and out of which they pay generous commissions for referrals…..Oh what a joyful money go round for all concerned!!.Is there a conspiracy, ? No need at all! Remember how our elected MPs fiddled their expenses? No conspiracy ,just all “SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH”! Birds of a feather flock together ! Or put another way ;those who live off the system defend the system.WHOOPEE !!
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………….
An increase of 14% over the last 3 years! Clearly “emotional abuse” is the “buzzword” for social workers…………….
Statistics: England http://www.baaf.org.uk/res/statengland
Children in public care 67,050 children were in the care of local authorities on 31st March 2012
75% (50,260) of children looked after on 31st March 2012 were living with foster carers
9% (5,930) were living in secure units, children’s homes or hostels
5% (3,600) were living with their parents
4% (2,680) were placed for adoption
3% (2,340) were with another placement in the community
3% (1,980) were placed in residential schools or other residential settings
Where are the placements with kinship carers???
CONFIDENTIALITY/ PRIVACY = INJUSTICE
LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BOGUS SECRECY OF OUR FAMILY COURTS !
Children Act 1987 section 97
97 Privacy for children involved in certain proceedings. E+W
(1)Rules made under section 144 of the M1Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 may make provision for a magistrates’ court to sit in private in proceedings in which any powers under this Act [F1or the Adoption and Children Act 2002] may be exercised by the court with respect to any child.
(2)No person shall publish [F2to the public at large or any section of the public] any material which is intended, or likely, to identify—
(a)any child as being involved in any proceedings before [F3the High Court, a county court or] a magistrates’ court in which any power under this Act [F1or the Adoption and Children Act 2002] may be exercised by the court with respect to that or any other child; or
(b)an address or school as being that of a child involved in any such proceedings
Section 62: Publication of material relating to legal proceedings:- Children act 2004
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.
252. It is envisaged that rules of court will set out the cases in which publication of information relating to children is authorised. Being authorised by rules of court, such publication will not constitute contempt. Subsection (2) amends section 12 of the Administration of the Justice Act 1960 to make it clear that the reference in subsection (4) to publication which does not constitute contempt includes cases where the publication is expressly authorised by rules of court.
Despite the new rules the judges simply exclude the media from controversial cases as the very typical example below shows !
COURT 7 Before DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE HILLIER Tuesday, 26 May, 2009 At 10 o’clock Applications/Summonses in Court as in Chambers FD07D05980
At half past 10 FD09D00226
At 11 o’clock FD08D04833(NOT OPEN TO THE MEDIA) !!
At 12 o’clock FD08P02429
At 2 o’clock FD08D04757(NOT OPEN TO THE MEDIA) !!
At 3 o’clock
Many parents suffer when they see their children dragged away kicking and screaming as they are taken into “care”.Later the guardian and the social worker will swear in court that “the children do not want to see you or hear from you !” Any attempt to see the children and question them either in court or out of it is forbidden on the grounds that it would emotionallly harm the children ; In fact of course, the reason for the refusal is to prevent the truth from emerging that these kids are mostly desperate not only to see their parents but also to return to them ! Such is the wickedness perpetrated daily in our so called “family courts” !
I reproduce this email received by me from a well known “victim” of the system !
Why do (real) criminal women keep their children? Answer = Because they are under the glare of the public criminal courts AND the Ministry of Justice who actually keep mothers and children together, unlike the Ministry of Education = secrecy and money, who have NO jurisdiction over the MOJ, take the kids in secret! I found this incredible point out when I was in prison being encouraged to fetch Sapphire to the UK as they needed to fill spaces in the mother and baby unit to keep it open (or keep funded). I was worried outside SS was going to snatch her but was told they HAD NO JURISDICTION! Jeronimho- I figured the safest place in the UK for me and Sapphire to be together was in a bloody prison!! One couldn’t make it up. I was protected from social workers by a 20 foot fricking fence!!! PERFECT (apart from the shit food). I love this country (not really). Prisons have in house Social Workers who are rather normal compassionate people! Let the penny drop like it did with me. Vicky
Most UK solicitors and barristers in the family courts are PROFESSIONAL LOSERS ! Avoid them and represent yourself so that at least you can speak for yourself !!
A BARRISTER REVEALS THE TRUTH
Michelle Freedman, a barrister with 10 years’ experience representing parents in the family courts writes: “Clients are like lambs to the slaughter. Every client I met filled me with sadness (except of course in cases where there was obvious abuse and not in the Local Authorities’ and court’s interpretation of the word). I would sit with desperate mothers and / or fathers with their eyes wide open in worry repeatedly asking me what I thought the outcome to the case would be. How to relay to the client that the reality is that the children will most likely be made subject to care orders and ultimately adopted. How to tell the client that we are merely going through a kangaroo court process whereby the majority of children are taken from loving parents once the machine (i.e the court process) has been switched on.”
“Throughout proceedings clients would genuinely believe that ‘justice would prevail’ and the courts would see that the children are better of at home with mum and dad. As any other barrister, and for good reason, I told parents that there is no certainty in proceedings…. I did not have the heart to crush their spirits from the outset. I truly believe that we are living in tragic times at the moment.”
Follow my blog at: http://wigandfudge.co.uk/
NON MOLESTATION ORDERS :- can forbid a mother from molesting her own daughter ! It is a total distortion of the English Language to pretend this includes sending a birthday card or waving at one’s children in the street as happened in previous cases.To Molest =To intentionally annoy (Oxford dictionary) but no proof has ever been produced in these cases or any other cases that children have been intentionally annoyed by parents from whom they have been forcibly separated.
Judges guidelines instruct them to interpret statutes in such a way as to give effect to the intentions of those who drafted them.
Non molestation orders were clearly drafted to protect one person from violence committed on them by another person.(more often than not by a man on his wife or partner);There was no way that it was intended to cut off mothers from their children and no way that “molestation” could in most such cases apply to contacts between non criminal parent and child .The judges in Vicky’s case and many other cases have acted “ultra vires”, outside their powers and should be restrained by police and by parliament if nothing else has any effect.
NO CONTACT ORDERS:- These can forbid all contact face to face ,by email,phone ,or via a third party even when the child initiates the contact.There is no statute or other legal authority permitting judges to make such orders and to make them penal.
These orders are often made for long or even indefinite periods as happened in the case of a father recently jailed for breaching a no contact order (made 15 years earlier) because he congratulated his son on facebook on his 21st birthday long after a care order had expired and was therefore discharged.
It is contended that no judge has the legal authority derived from any statute to make such draconian orders infringing Article 10 of the Human Rights Act and also the United Nations Convention.Such judges act “ultra vires” outside their powere and should as a last resort be restrained by police and by Act of Parliament.
Legal aid lawyer, secret court and social workers ‘colluded’ to adopt boys
TWO YOUNG children were taken from their distraught mother and placed for adoption because her own legal aid lawyers “colluded” with social workers, according to an MP’s extraordinary allegation in Parliament.
By Ted Jeory Daily Express, November 10, 2013
In a highly unusual accusation, John Hemming said lawyers for Jacque Courtnage colluded with Derbyshire County Council to prevent her analysing a document he believes would have cleared her of abuse allegations.
She and her husband have lost their two sons, now aged six and eight, for ever after a court ruled on the balance of probabilities they were responsible for harming their youngest when he was a baby.
They have never been arrested nor charged with any criminal offence due to lack of evidence.
Their heartbreaking story emerged in a Commons debate two months ago when Mr Hemming used Parliamentary privilege to name the mother and to make accusations against her lawyers and Derbyshire County Council.
He says the parents are the victims of a miscarriage of justice in the secret family court system.
WHAT DO THE 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.
4: Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court said that other than in exceptional circumstances judges should treat requests to hear cases in closed courts with ‘distaste and concern’. In a blow to ministers, Lord Neuberger said hearing evidence behind closed doors was ‘against the principle of justice’.
5: Baroness Hale (the only lady judge in the UK supreme court) said “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’. ”
Lady Hale: Dissenting judgement in the Supreme Court “B” a child. 143. This case raises some profound questions about the scope of courts’ powers to take away children from their birth families when what is feared is, not physical abuse or neglect, but emotional or psychological harm. 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 anti-social political or religious beliefs. (Baroness Hale of Richmond in B (Children), Re  UKHL 35 (11 June)
6:-Courts are routinely removing children from their mothers into care after “cutting and pasting” the arguments put by social services and rubber-stamping them, a senior judge has warned.
Mrs Justice Pauffley said that she was “profoundly alarmed” at the discovery that family courts were effectively in cahoots with social services through such “clandestine arrangements”, which undermined the independence of the justice system. She added: “It is patently wrong, must stop at once and never happen again.”
The judge made her comments as she granted an appeal to return a baby to his mother in a case she described as “shocking”.
7:-Pauffley J also expressed concern about a ‘triage’ assessment of the mother by a chartered clinical psychologist which was commissioned and completed during the course of the day before the first hearing. She said:
“It simply cannot be right, fair or reasonable to commission an expert to provide what may turn out to be the pivotal evidence justifying separation of a neonate from his mother in the way that happened here.
“It surprises and alarms me that Dr van Rooyen [the psychologist] was asked, and was prepared, to provide a report during the course of a single working day, a terrifyingly tight timeframe, and on the basis of papers supplemented by a telephone conversation with a local authority professional who had never met the mother. I struggle to understand how Dr van Rooyen’s apparently firm opinions, adverse to the mother, could have been formed given the complete absence of any kind of discussion with her or, indeed, any communication with [the resource].”
We should also remember the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions)  1 FLR 2050:
“Many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or ‘model’ them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.”
MUNBY LJ states in
Re J (A Child)  EWHC 2694 (Fam)
- The second matter is this. The workings of the family justice system and, very importantly, the views about the system of the mothers and fathers caught up in it, are, as Balcombe LJ put it in Re W (Wardship. Discharge. Publicity)  2 FLR 466, 474, “matters of public interest which can and should be discussed publicly”. Many of the issues litigated in the family justice system require open and public debate in the media. I repeat what I said in Harris v Harris, Attorney–General v Harris  2 FLR 895, paras -, about the importance in a free society of parents who feel aggrieved at their experiences of the family justice system being able to express their views publicly about what they conceive to be failings on the part of individual judges or failings in the judicial system. And the same goes, of course, for criticism of local authorities and others.
10:-Sir James Munby:-
The country’s top family judge has warned that moves to speed up adoption could lead to children being removed from their birth parents on flimsy evidence.
President of the Family Division Sir James Munby described separating children from their families as a ‘last resort’ but said the current ‘sloppy practice’ meant that often ‘little more than lip service’ is given to other options.
In an unanimous judgment in Re B-S (Children)  EWCA Civ 1146, the President said:
“We have real concerns, shared by other judges, about the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption, both in the materials put before the court by local authorities and guardians and also in too many judgments. This is nothing new. But it is time to call a halt.” 
It would be idle to ignore the fact that these concerns are only exacerbated by the fact that the United Kingdom is unusual in Europe in permitting the total severance of family ties without parental consent: see Re B-S (Children)  EWCA Civ 1146, para 19, referring to the speech of Baroness Hale in Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust and another v H and another  UKHL 36, para 34. Thus the outcome of care proceedings in England and Wales may be that a child who is a national of another European country is adopted by an English family notwithstanding the vigorous protests of the child’s non-English parents.
What did the Minister for Children say in 2012 ?
The Children’s Minister Edward Timpson said “the outcomes for children in care remain woeful.”“For instance, we know that children in care are seven times more likely to misuse drugs and alcohol than others, 50 times more likely to end up in prison, 60 times more likely to become homeless and 66 times more likely to have children of their own who will need public care.
Unfortunately judges who are thought to be highly intelligent folk never look at the “obvious”
When they consider the cases of children with vaguely dysfunctional parents ,who perhaps shout at each other,have non violent problems with alcohol,or who have mild learning difficulties, and consign them to so called “care “.They NEVER NEVER compare the terrible risks of “care” as shown above with the sometimes “negligible by comparison “risk of leaving them with their own parents.
Surely most children would have a better chance with their imperfect parents than with the far worse risk of “care”?
Here are the official guidelines to proceedings in the family court – but these are largely ignored by judges and social workers:
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
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.
Most put on the registers were deemed at risk of neglect or of physical or emotional abuse, while others were exposed to dangers associated with having parents who were drug addicts, alcoholics or had serious criminal convictions.
Child protection experts insist it is right to keep newborns away from potentially dangerous parents, and argue they have to be more cautious following cases such as the death of Baby P, later named as Peter Connelly, and four-year-old Daniel Pelka, who was starved and beaten by his mother and her lover, finally dying of a severe head injury.
But opponents of the system say that it presumes guilt and that social workers are removing children to cover their own backs.
John Hemming, a Lib Dem MP and vocal critic of the fostering and adoption process, said: ‘There can be good reasons to put an unborn child on a child protection plan.
‘But the system can lead to the wrongful removal of very young babies for all sorts of strange reasons. Once children are removed, only about 20 per cent go back to their parents.’
He continued: ‘With child protection, not every case is a Baby P case. But I know that social workers have been fired for saying that a child should go home to its parents. If you put them under that sort of pressure, they are going to say the child should be adopted.’
Ian Josephs, who provides informal legal advice to parents, said: ‘These parents are being punished without committing a crime. In the family courts, they are guilty until proven innocent.’
A child may be put on a protection register if doctors or social workers fear for its safety. The parents are invited to discuss the matter but do not have to be present for the child to be placed on the register. No court order is needed
EXAMPLES OF HOW RULES OF EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN DISCARDED IN THE FAMILY COURTs WHEN GRANTING INTERIM CARE ORDERS.
1:- Statements from the local authority are shown to the judge but rarely to parents.Family and friends of parents are routinely excluded from the court but groups of social workers are allowed to stay in the court to listen to their colleague’s testimony whether they are witnesses or not.
2:- Parents representing themselves are denied the opportunity to cross examine witnesses appearing against them.Judgements,reports from experts,and position statements are either witheld or given to parents at the last minute (too late to read and analyse them properly).
3:- Parents are routinely refused permission to call for a second opinion when “experts” and Doctors have testified against them.If parents record contacts with their children, or interviews with experts or social workers judges routinely refuse permission for these recordings to be heard yet they always allow recordings and video evidence to be heard if produced by police or social workers.
4:-Parents whose children have been taken are routinely and wrongly told that they may not talk to ANYONE (except lawyers and social workers) about their case.
5:-Parents are threatened with jail if they protest publlcly when their children are taken.They are also jailed for “breach of the peace” or “harassment” if they dare to trace and then contact their own children after adoption.Parents are therefore” twice gagged” contrary to the Human Rights Act ,Article 10 entitling all persons “freedom of expression”,ie freedom of speech.
6:-Local authority barristers in court often read out statements from absent persons as though they are themselves witnesses but they cannot be questioned.
7:- Most solicitors refuse to let their clients speak and then agree to all care orders demanded by social services.They tell the hapless parents “it is better not to oppose the interim care order ,but to wait for the final hearing”,ignoring the position set out below (in red) where L.J.Thorpe makes it very clear that the parents are so prejudiced by the proceedings thereafter that it is “very difficult to get a child back” after a removal hearing.
8:-Judges routinely castigate parents who wish to speak or who represent themselves even though they have the right to do so;Their evidence and their arguments are usually ignored in the judgements.
9;-Parents representing themselves are often given an hour or two’s notice to appear in court but solicitors are given weeks !
10:-Parents are punished for “risk” ie not what they have done but for what they might do in the future! “Risk of emotional abuse” is favourite because there is no legal definition of this and it is usually impossible for parents to defend themselves against “predictions” by so called “experts” who are often unqualified (20% according to the latest report by professor Ireland commissioned by the government!)
11:-Judges give social workers the power to withold parents’ contact with their children” in care” as a punishment for saying they love them and miss them or that they are fighting to get them back .Foreign children are forbidden to speak their own language with their parents or relatives,mobile phones are confiscated,and children in care are denied these basic rights that are however accorded to murderers and rapists in prison!They use this power to gag parents and force them into complete submission !
12:-Parents are in effect condemned for offences against their children on “probabilities” 51% instead of beyond reasonable doubt.They can be acquitted in the high court and,the appeal court,and even when all charges have been dropped by the police social services can overule all those bodies and condemn parents on 51% probability (nearly half the time they could be wrong!) and take their children into care with a view to forced adoption.
13:-Parents who were themselves in care or who were abused in childhood are often judged unfit to be parents as a result.Their past misdemeanours whether real or alleged, such as shoplifting,or destruction of property (often 10 years ago or more) are inevitably used against them in court (even when a criminal court has acquitted them !) to prove them unfit parents.This would be illegal in a criminal court.
14:-Parents often forfeit their children for “failing to engage with professionals”The very persons who tell them and their neighbours that the children will never be returned !
15:-Parents faced with forced adoption lose their children for life, without being allowed a hearing by jury.
16:-Under the UN Convention on children’s rights,and a recent Supreme Court case (W a child), children have a RIGHT to be heard in court but are usually denied that right.
17:-Solicitors routinely tell client parents to either agree or to take a neutral position in regard to interim care orders or they risk losing later and maybe never seeing their children again.A lie !
18:-Social workers are legally obliged to place children with relatives if possible but either ignore this or find pretexts to fail them on assessments
19:-Human rights to free speech and freedom of movement are breached by gagging orders, confiscating passports,and even “prohibited steps” that limit parent’s movements and can force them to remain in the same flat or house indefinitely !
20:-The Children Act specifically instructs social workers to reunite families wherever possible and to place children removed from their parents with relatives.In practice couples are urged to separate,to quit their jobs and go on benefits so as to keep awkward contact times with their children and to be free to meet social workers etc for meetings whenever summoned to do so.Relatives including grandparents,aunts,and uncles are set aside to be “assessed” and are more often than not failed on the grounds that they are too friendly with the parents or maybe had a difficult past 10 years ago, or more simply that they are too old in their forties or fifties even though this does not apply to fosterers .Theory and practice are a long way apart in our family courts;
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.
father secretly films baby being taken:
The secrecy in family courts will not be lifted simply because L.J Munby now decides that” judgements will in future be published unless there are compelling reasons not to do so” .Who decides the reasons? Why the judges of course !Since the families will still not be named in these judgements these judgements will for most people be difficult to identify and locate.They will even if located simply say what the judge has decided but will not give details of what actually happened in the court.
The justice dealt out by family courts will still be vastly inferior to that of the criminal courts until the two are bound by the same rules
In my opinion, that is precisely what should happen.
I make 12 points to illustrate:- The modernisation needed but so far not forthcoming is as follows:-
1:-There should be a presumption that parents who plead in court for the return of their children taken into care should succeed unless it is conclusively proved beyond reasonable doubt to be against the child’s best interests.
2:- A parent who has not committed a crime against mother,child,or children in general should never be forbidden contact.
3:- Hearsay evidence ,even from “experts” should never be preferred to that from persons in the witness box.
4:- Parents should be allowed to call witnesses to court unless their statements provided in advance are already accepted as true by the local authority.
5:-Close relatives of parents should always be admitted to the family courts.
6:- Closed adoption should never take place without parental consent.
7:- Long term fostercare(until age 18) should only be ordered if approved by a jury.
8:- Competent children of age 8 + who wish to give evidence in court should be allowed to do so
9:- Children’s conversation with parents at contact should never be censored and mobile phones should not be confiscated.
10;-Children should never be removed purely for emotional harm or the risk of it . They should only be removed if a criminal offence has been committed
11:-Parents whose children have been taken by social services should have the right to protest to the media using their own names.No judges should have the power to issue orders gagging persons concerned in a case before them preventing them from making public their grievances.
12:- Parents who report abuse (sexual or physical) on themselves or their children should not be penalised if disbelieved without solid proof that they had lied.
Munby offers words but no actions or legal changes.He does however say this ;”I repeat what I said in Harris v Harris,Attorney–General v Harris (2001) 2 FLR895, paras (360)–(369), about the importance in a free society of parents who feel aggrieved at their experiences of the family justice system being able to express their views publicly about what they conceive to be failings on the part of individual judges or failings in the judicial system.And the same goes of course,for criticism of local authorities and others.”
He agrees with the right to protest but suggests no way of enforcing it on other judges who still issue gagging orders.
Here’s another earlier video of me explaining my position on forced adoption.
THE REAL CRIMINALS ARE THE JUDGES !!
Well they used to say “Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done”A cardinal principle of the rule of law.
Modern UK judges have ruthlessly discarded this principle and threaten with “jail for contempt” any person claiming to be the victim of unjust decisions in the private/secret family courts if they dare to protest publicly.
Thes judges are devoted to just one thing :- THE COVER UP !!
PROTECT THE “SYSTEM” AT ALL COSTS
EXAMPLES? Here are three:-
1:- Hundreds of mothers with no criminal records or substance addictions have their babies snatched at birth for “risk of emotional abuse” .If they protest publicly they are threatened with jail for “contempt” by judges concerned only with protecting the “system” by a “COVER UP” of gross injustices to mothers.
2:-Parents involved in both public and private law cases, who have no criminal records or substance addictions are frequently served with orders by judges that they shall not communicate with their own children face to face,by telephone,email,text,or post under pain of imprisonment.Such judges are concerned only with protecting the system by a COVER UP of gross injustices to both children and parents and abuses of children in care.
3:-Elderly persons are declared incompetent by social workers with no medical qualifications so that they can be removed by force from their own homes or those of relatives to be placed in highly expensive care homes ,their own houses sold and their bank accounts looted to pay for their lawyers and their keep.Judges once again issue orders that no details of the plight of these individuals shall be made public.A COVER UP of gross injustices to the elderly;
What excuse do the judges make for the COVER UP ?
Well Article 10 of the Human Rights Act guarantees freedom of expression,ie Freedom of speech….. However Article 8 guarantees “the right to a private family life undisturbed by public authority”;The legislators clearly intended this last measure to protect the family from interference from the State.Unfortunately, perverse UK judges have turned this measure on its head and used it to protect the State from aggrieved families!They do this by threatening them with jail for violating the privacy of their own children and elderly relatives if they dare to expose the injustices inflicted on them by judges intent on enforcing a COVER UP;
These same judges reveal themselves as hypocrites when they throw “privacy” out of the window by allowing children to be advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror,”Be my parent,” and similar publications with first names,dates of birth,and colour photos with no regard to the privacy of the children or the distress of parents seeing their children offered to the public for selection like pedigree dogs….
I think perhaps the worst thing in the care system is the way children in the 8-15 age group are treated when they are taken into “care” .Their mobile phones are confiscated and when applicable so are their laptops.They are isolated from their friends,parents,grandparents and even sometimes their siblings.No communication of any kind is permitted and when parents are finally allowed to visit in cold impersonal contact centres all conversation is strictly censored so that no mention can be made of the court case,why they are here and what chances they have of returning home.No complaint by children of sexual or physical abuse by foster families or social workers is allowed.No weeping and no excessive affection can be shown .Any breach of these and countless other rules in the “contact agreement “parents are obliged to sign, and contact will be stopped at once and sometimes for good .These children are treated worse than murderers and rapists in prison because those criminals at least are allowed to make phone calls and can discuss what they like with visitors whilst children who have done nothing wrong can do neither ! No wonder these unfortunate children wonder if they are evil or if they have done something terribly wicked.Only the cold and utterly heartless would inflict such cruel indignities on innocent children.
What about disputes between parents over the custody of their children?(Private law)Only too often the “SS” and Cafcass are brought in,and the consequences are drastic indeed !Judges tend to take the same side and adopt the same attitudes as the “SS”. Consequently, the punishment meted out to the losing parent is nothing short of disgraceful…..
The real disgrace however, is not so much the initial conduct of the courts dealing with parents disputes, or disputes by parents with the local authority, as the “aftermath”.Vindictive injuctions are granted forbidding the losing parent( whether mother or father) from all contact with their child or children until those children are 18 year of age. This happens to my personal knowledge to drug and alcohol free parents with no criminal records who have never been accused let alone charged with any criminal act against their children. Parents have been jailed for sending a birthday card,leaving an Xmas present on a doorstep,waving at children as they passed by in a car, and of course 3 years for Vicky Haig for talking to her daughter at a petrol station even though she had not seen her for a year ! These judges belong to the Victorian age except that instead of hanging thieves they now pick on desperate defenceless non criminal parents who they dislike but who should always be allowed some form of supervised contact no matter what the circumstances .What about “Baby P” you cry??Well believe it or not his witch of a mother has been allowed contact with her surviving children whilst still serving time in jail !
Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph
|Articles by Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph exposing the truth of the child-snatchers.|
|– 09 Jun 2012 Social workers display an astonishing contempt Read here
– 03 Mar 2012 We already have unjust secret courts Read here
– 25 Feb 2012 Mum faces jail because her children talked to each other on Facebook Read here– 28 Jan 2012 Facts about child snatching can be reported in Norway but not here? Read here– 03 Dec 2011 A wall of secrecy, parents who lost their children are now in jail Read here– 12 Nov 2011 Our family courts repeat the error that jailed Dreyfus Read here
– 08 Oct 2011 Cameron’s sudden zeal for adoption misses the point. Read here
– 11 Jun 2011 The mystery of Haringey’s missing ‘Girl X’ makes a mockery of the Children Act Read here
– 04 Jun 2011 How our judges deny human rights to children taken into care. The right to family life – invoked to get a burglar out of prison, or a celebrity granted a super-injunction – is denied to many children. Read here
– 02 Jun 2011 A Fathers Nightmare – A bizarre episode involving a father’s separation from his children shows up our farcical law, says Christopher Booker. Read here
– May 23 2011 Vicky Haigh saves her baby from the clutches of the social workers. A British woman has given birth in Ireland to stop Nottinghamshire social workers from seizing her child, says Christopher Booker. Read here
– 30 April 2011 Vicky Haigh flees the babysnatchers Using parliamentary privilege, John Hemming MP has named renowned jockey and trainer Vicky Haigh as the woman threatened with imprisonment for speaking to him, writes Christopher Booker. Read Here
– 19 March 2011 Another ‘horrible’ case for you, Mr Loughton. The scandal of seizures by social workers of children from responsible parents is bigger than the Children’s Minister has stated, says Christopher Booker. Read here – 05 March 2011 Parents denied a voice in court against the child-snatchers. Lord Justice Thorpe was ‘aghast’ at the way children had been removed from their parents by a county court. But such outrages are an everyday procedure, says Christopher Booker. Read here
– 12 Febuary 2011 Tim Loughton, the children’s minister, slams my ‘unhelpful’ campaign against the child-snatchers. The minister responsible, TIm Loughton, does not seem to think that forced adoption is a problem, says Christopher Booker. Read here
– 15 January 2011 A mother’s fall causes her to lose her child. A woman who was temporarily paralysed in a fall had her baby taken into care while she lay in hospital, writes Christopher Booker. Read here
– 18 December 2010 Does this family have human rights? Social workers persist in their cruel treatment of an innocent family. Read here
– 11 December 2010 Social workers’ cruel game with children in care continues. Why can a mother not be told her children are unavailable before she makes an epic journey to see them. Read here
– 04 December 2010 Child protection: how a cruel council plays its cat-and-mouse game. One distraught family’s experience is typical of our warped system of child protection. Read here
– 27 November 2010 Forced adoptions get no sympathy from the ministry. While loving families are torn apart, Whitehall insists the system is working fine. Read here
– 20 November 2010 Forced adoption: another win for the child snatchers. The case of Tony and Debbie Sims illustrates the cruelty of our child protection system. Read here
– 6 November 2010 Refugees flee the tyranny of social workers. Cyprus has proved a haven for a family fleeing forced adoption. Read here
– 30 October 2010 Child protection: MPs must act on the scandal of seized children. Britain’s child protection system is off the rails, and only the politicians who built it can fix it. Read here
Shut Up While We Steal Your Family and Property
www.fixcas.com, October 17, 2012
Richard Browning-Smith was hospitalized in 2009 for foot surgery. He spent some time recuperating in Horkesley Manor care home in Essex England, where social workers, without a medical diagnosis, decided he was unable to look after himself. He went to a bus stop on his own to get home, but social workers took him back by force and held him in the dementia unit. His son Richard Jr was out of the country at the time. But on his return, he tried to get his father, still able to solve crosswords and play chess, back home. Social workers complained about the condition of the father’s home, so Richard Jr arranged to spend £60,000 on renovations. When Richard took his father home from Horkesley Manor, police arrived to take him back, but as there was no custody order in place, they left without taking dad. But a few weeks later Horkesley Manor completed the legal formalities and retrieved him. A year into the ordeal, Horkesley became the deputy of Richard Sr, what is called a guardian in other places. They got full control of his assets, including his bank accounts. Soon Richard Jr had to pay rent to live in what had been the family home for 50 years and his family heirlooms are in storage waiting to be auctioned.
Richard Jr has fought back through the courts, reaching the European Court of Human Rights. He has also drawn public attention to the case. Two newspaper articles are enclosed. A judge has ordered Richard Jr to avoid naming a council official, court officials or anything to do with the Court of Protection either through the press or social network sites, while warning that violation could result in three to six months in jail. On this coming November 2 the court will conduct a hearing on Richard Jr’s capacity to litigate. This is a British procedure for getting rid of recalcitrant opponents by declaring them unfit to conduct their own litigation. A lapdog gets appointed in their place to concede everything the opponent wants. Mr Browning-Smith knows English, Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, Latin and French. Doesn’t sound incompetent.
This is the familiar story of a child abducted and placed in foster care to justify a claim on the public treasury. In the Browning-Smith case, it is at the other end of life, and the father’s estate may be part of the temptation.
Because of the threats against Richard Jr, we won’t mention the source for these paragraphs.
- The MCA, as amended by the Mental Health Act 2005, provides as follows: “
- 1. The principles
- (1) The following principles apply for the purposes of this Act.
- (2) A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity.
- (3) A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help him to do so have been taken without success.
- (4) A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision.
- (5) An act done, or decision made, under this Act for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in his best interests.
- (6) Before the act is done, or the decision is made, regard must be had to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person’s rights and freedom of action.
- 2. People who lack capacity
- (1) For the purposes of this Act, a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.
- (2) It does not matter whether the impairment or disturbance is permanent or temporary.
- (3) A lack of capacity cannot be established merely by reference to — (a) a person’s age or appearance, or (b) a condition of his, or an aspect of his behaviour, which might lead others to make unjustified assumptions about his capacity. (4) In proceedings under this Act or any other enactment, any question whether a person lacks capacity within the meaning of this Act must be decided on the balance of probabilities. …
- 3. Inability to make decisions
- (1) For the purposes of section 2, a person is unable to make a decision for himself if he is unable — (a) to understand the information relevant to the decision, (b) to retain that information, (c) to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision, or (d) to communicate his decision (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means).
- (2) A person is not to be regarded as unable to understand the information relevant to a decision if he is able to understand an explanation of it given to him in a way that is appropriate to his circumstances (using simple language, visual aids or any other means).
- (3) The fact that a person is able to retain the information relevant to a decision for a short period only does not prevent him from being regarded as able to make the decision. (4) The information relevant to a decision includes information about the reasonably foreseeable consequences of— (a) deciding one way or another, or (b) failing to make the decision.cb
U.S. moves to crush internal dissentPosted: 10 Apr 2014 10:37 PM PDTIn yet another legal maneuver to shut down dissent, the attorney disciplinary board in the State of Illinois has suspended Chicago-based activist attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky’s license to practice law for four years, following a hearing where Ditkowsky’s right to speak out against corruption in the courts featured center-stage.
Ditkowsky, who has been practicing law since the early 1960s, came to public attention after he became outspoken against what he calls “elder cleansing,” which is taking place in guardianship programs in courts throughout the United States. Ditkowsky has been sending emails to public officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder and US Senator Matt Kirk on a regular basis, asking for an “honest and complete investigation” of reported abuses going on under the mantle of adult guardianships.
Ditkowsky has defined “elder cleansing” as a three step process: First, a court must assert its dominion over an elder person’s life and assets by appointing a guardian. Ditkowsky has detailed instances, such as in the Mary Sykes guardianship, where legal process was not adhered to. Second, the elder is systematically isolated from concerned family and friends and his assets pilfered by the very guardian who is in place to conserve the estate. The final stage of elder cleansing, according to Ditkowsky, occurs when the elder, now isolated and placed into a facility, is drugged to death.
Ditkowsky was placed under disciplinary proceedings by the IARDC (Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission), after his repeated allegations of attorney and judicial misconduct in the guardianship of Mary G. Sykes, Alice Gore and others began to apparently become an irritant. At one point, Ditkowsky was asked by IARDC attorney Leah Black if he were not “sorry” for his emails asking for an investigation into these cases.
Mary G. Sykes has been isolated from family and friends for several years. A number of valuable assets, including old gold and silver coins, have reportedly disappeared during the tenure of the guardianship. In another guardianship matter, Alice Gore had her teeth mined for gold fillings, which were removed on order of the guardian.
Ditkowsky has pledged to continue on the fight against elder cleansing. In another one of his widely disseminated emails following his receipt of notice of suspension from the practice of law, Ditkowsky stated the following….
henceforth my full time efforts will be directed toward the fight to prevent ‘elder cleansing’ and the WAR AGAINST THE ELDERLY AND THE DISABLED that our miscreant abusive guardians and those who work in concert with them – i.e. the political royals, Jerome Larkin and the IARDC, etc. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the IARDC and ruled that the First Amendment to the Illinois Constitution has been abrogated.
The State of Illinois appears to have adopted a “take no prisoners” policy against dissident attorneys. However, the very IARDC attorneys who prosecuted Ditkowsky’s license have failed to file their mandated financial disclosure forms. These forms are to be filed to ensure that those in government are not receiving bribes and payoffs in return for their official duties. In other words, the law of the State of Illinois apparently does not apply to those working for government.
In concert with another Illinois attorney, JoAnne Denison, Ken Ditkowsky has filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court, alleging that his First Amendment rights have been breached. JoAnne Denison is also on trial for her bar license for the act of running a blog – marygsykes.com – which is critical of judges and other legal professionals as relates to the practice of elder law and guardianship.
Ken Ditkowsky’s writings have been regularly featured on Denison’s blog. Denison has also filed a copyright infringement suit, based on what she alleges to be improper dominion by the IARDC over the blog.
At stake here is more than the individual careers of a couple of attorneys. When individuals are censured for what is considered to be Constitutionally protected speech, the public at large suffers, as well. Writes JoAnne Denison,
As you are aware, the greatest weapons in this country counter to a dictatorship and tyranny are undoubtedly the right to petition freely and openly our government for redress, and when that fails, our right to take unresolved grievances to be aired in the media.
In one fell swoop, the IARDC takes away these rights.
As attorneys, we cannot call a spade a spade, a pig with lipstick becomes a lady, and words such as “corrupt”, “tortfeasor”, civil and human rights violations, theft, conversion, embezzlement, false imprisonment are swiftly taken away from our blogs, then the public is not warned.”
At the time of going to press, blogger Roger Shuler has been sitting in jail for five months in Alabama, due to a “prior restraint” issue. Moveon.org is being sued by the Governor of Louisianna, Bobby Jindal, for a billboard which states that Jindal’s acts as Governor resulted in the denial of Medicaid coverage for 242,000 people. Yet another arrest warrant has been issued for an outspoken probate court victim, this time out in Logan County, Ohio. The arrest warrant for Rosanna Miller is for failure to pay a couple of grand in court costs. However, the law prohibits jailing someone for a debt in Ohio.
A large reaper appears to be at play, cutting down and silencing activists, attorneys and non-attorneys alike. Anyone who speaks out appears to be at risk. The use of the legal system as an instrument of (domestic) war has resulted in the coining of a new word, “lawfare,” which aptly describes the sorts of assaults on rights and freedoms such as noted herein.
As summed up by Ken Ditkowsky, “According to our brethren who regulate Attorney conduct noticing the ‘elder cleansing’ is unethical, and if you speak concerning it you are a danger to the profession and you will be suspended or disbarred.”
And in an impassioned moment, JoAnne Denison writes comparing the guardianship programs with the T-4 program in Hitler’s Germany:
It was not until late in the T4 program and by then the concentration camp program was in full swing that a German Cardinal finally read aloud a letter protesting forced euthanasia and reaffirming the sanctity of life that protests began among German catholics and the letter was read aloud in all the German churches eventually and protests in German started to take off. But by then it was simply too late. A deeply entrenched machine had already flourished for years. Jews and other undesireables were already being sent to their deaths by the bus loads.
Only the end of the war would stop this machine.
So I stand here today and I will trash my law license so that this T4 program with grandma and grandpa will go no further. Many have gone to the ARDC, the federal and state authorities with credible cases and plenty of evidence and were completely ignored. T4 was implemented, condoned and covered up by attorneys in the Drabik and Gore cases. Remember, T4 started with infants. Our seniors are just as vulnerable.
Just say NO to T4 in the US. Say NO to involuntary euthanasia for elders. Say NO to elder cleansing and elder trafficking. Whatever you call it, it’s just plain wrong and people, and especially attorneys must blog and must protest.
Neither Jim Grogan, the press spokesman for the IARDC, nor Jim Tybor, press contact for the Illinois Supreme Court, responded to queries from this reporter as to why the ARDC attorneys had not filed their financial disclosure forms.
US Moves to Crush Internal Dissent Janet Phelan March 28, 2014 Activist Post http://www.activistpost.com/2014/03/us-moves-to-crush-internal-dissent.html
Here are some really appalling statistics for you. If a Social Worker decides your child should be taken into care,do you think you stand a chance? Look at these figures from the England and Wales Judicial statistics. Look at 2004′s figures for example when 8,493 applications for a care order were made to the court and only 11, yes I said 11 Care Orders were refused. Great, that means you have a 0.01% chance of winning in court! Why?Because the legal aid solicitors are “professional losers” so the only parents who win are those happy few who sack their lawyers and represent themselves!They at least have a nearly 50-50 chance !
Much better to send children to Foster/Adoptive Hell where they are statistically seven times more likely to be abused and shockingly three times more likely to die during childhood than if they were at home with their natural parents. Of course there are many foster and adoptive families who are doing an excellent job at bringing up their children, but sadly this is a rare phenomenon. For most children, the care system is the last place on earth which could be considered a safe haven (see Hollie Greig case for example.)
- CARE APPLICATIONS 2004 APPLICATIONS MADE 8,493 ORDERS REFUSED 11 NO ORDERS 306 WITHDRAWN 201 ORDERS MADE 7,796 (only 11 times did a judge actually refuse a care order)APPLICATIONS MADE 9,146 ORDERS REFUSED 10 NO ORDERS 92 WITHDRAWN 201 ORDERS MADE 8,849 (only 10 times did a judge actually refuse a care order)APPLICATIONS MADE 7,849 ORDERS REFUSED 12 NO ORDERS 289 WITHDRAWN 325 ORDERS MADE 7,222 (only 12 times did a judge actually refuse a care order)CARE APPLICATIONS 2008SOURCE: England and Wales Judicial Statistics
- APPLICATIONS MADE 7,640 ORDERS REFUSED 20 NO ORDERS 245 WITHDRAWN 258 ORDERS MADE 7,077 (only 20 times did a judge actually refuse a care order)
- CARE APPLICATIONS 2007 APPLICATIONS MADE 8,273 ORDERS REFUSED 23 NO ORDERS 290 WITHDRAWN 336 ORDERS MADE 7,624 (only 23 times did a judge actually refuse a care order)
- CARE APPLICATIONS 2006
- CARE APPLICATIONS 2005
From the law library o congress Republc of Ireland proving the point I think !
Northampton County Council v. ABF and MBF,18 the return of a child to England was refused,
because doing so would have created an adoption without consent of one of the parents. In this decision,
the Court relied heavily on article 41 of the Irish Constitution. It understood article 41 to grant the father
the right to enforce his rights as the natural father in a foreign jurisdiction. The Court believed that this
result was in concert with the protection of the rights of the father and the infant pursuant to article 41.
Baby Ann Judgments of the Irish Supreme Court made on 13 November 2006We provide links below to the Judgments made by the five Supreme Court Justices in the hearing labelled by the media as the “Baby Ann Adoption” case.These judgments represent a landmark in family law.
The principle of the case itself is simply that a baby cannot be adopted from a Married Family against the wishes of the parents. What is remarkable and commendable of the majority of the Justices (see Hardiman J., Geoghegan J., Fennelly J) is that they have seized this opportunity to reverse the slippage in the Rule of Law – the established law of the Family – that custom and practice, as exercised in the family law courts, especially the lower courts, has steadily eroded in the past 40 years.
Teenage mother found hanged days after discovering her baby had been adopted
Daily Mail, 1 June 2011
A tragic teenage mother’s body was found hanged days after she discovered her baby had been adopted by another family.
Annabelle Lee Morris, 19, could not cope with her son being taken into care and then put up for adoption.
Her father, Thomas James Morris, found her in her bedroom on March 18 last year – nine days after she found out that her son had new adoptive parents, York Coroner’s Court was told.
The authorities had intervened as she was struggling to look after him herself.
Speaking after the inquest, her cousin, Lorna Dawber, said: ‘She adored her son and had she accepted the help when it was there her future would have been completely different. In time she would have got there.
‘That was the one thing in life that was hers, she absolutely worshipped him.’
She said Annabelle would not have put her family through that deliberately.
‘She was a good soul and she had a good heart,’ she said.
The inquest heard that the child was taken into foster care when he was less than a year old.
Annabelle, from York, was still allowed to see him a few times a week, but when a psychologist raised further serious concerns, steps were taken to have the baby adopted.
Although it was arranged for Annabelle to meet mental health workers in 2009, she did not attend an appointment.
She saw her son, then 15 months old, for the final time in January 2010. At the time of her death she was on a doctor’s waiting list to see a counsellor.
Prior to the adoption, her social worker, John Corden, said Annabelle was ‘ambivalent’ about accepting the support offered to her as this would involve ‘putting boundaries around her lifestyle’.
But he said that he and other colleagues had been impressed by the ‘high quality of interaction’ between mother and child and that she had been ‘dignified and honest’ in her work with social services.
Mr Corden said ‘I had frequent discussions with Annabelle about the way the case was going. She never suggested to me that if adoption were the outcome she would harm herself.
‘Annabelle was blessed with a warm and benign personality. She could present herself as a well functioning and capable young lady.
‘In the fullness of time, that may have been a considerable asset to her.’
Coroner Donald Coverdale recorded an open verdict and said the cause of her death was asphyxia due to hanging.
Noting that she had strong support from a loving family and from social services, he said: ‘Miss Morris was a 19-year-old with a number of problems relating back to childhood.
‘In recent times she had gone through the trauma of having her child adopted.
‘The final meeting with her child had been in January and that time must have been the most difficult of all.
‘It seems to me that she had time to reflect on the unhappy course of events culminating in the adoption. My best guess is that what has happened was an impulsive act, it could be described as a cry for help.’
At last! Victory on secret courts: Rulings in family cases to be made public after Mail campaign and the work of a few dedicated campaigners
by Steve Doughty Daily Mail, 16th January 2014
- Family Court and Court of Protection judgements will now be made public
- Expert witnesses, including social workers, are to be named
- Councils applying to take children into care can no longer claim anonymity
- New rules laid down by President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
- Daily Mail has exposed a series of major scandals over the past year
- These have resulted from justice being conducted behind closed doors
Decisions by secret courts that can lead to children being taken from their parents or old people forced into care homes are finally to be opened up to public scrutiny. Under rules set out yesterday, future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be. Councils applying to take children into care or to take control of the lives of the old and sick can no longer hide behind a cloak of anonymity. Expert witnesses, including social workers, should also be named in public, as should anyone found responsible for wrongdoing. The landmark changes break a silence that has surrounded family justice for nearly 100 years. They also mark a major victory for the Daily Mail which has campaigned against secret courts and exposed a series of major scandals over the past year resulting from justice being conducted behind closed doors. The new rules, laid down by the most senior family judge, President of the Family Division Sir James Munby, say that judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must always be publicised unless there are ‘compelling reasons’ why not. Only children and adults caught up in disputes and members of their families should be protected by anonymity. The guidelines warn that secrecy prevents families who have been involved in cases from complaining when they believe they have suffered injustice. Sir James said in guidance sent to judges that there would be ‘an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection’.
He added: ‘In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system. ‘At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by judges in its name.’ The Mail’s campaign revealed last April that the Court of Protection – set up by the last Labour government to deal with the affairs of those too ill to make decisions for themselves – had jailed a woman in secret and without publishing any record. A Birmingham judge imprisoned Wanda Maddocks, 50, for contempt of court for trying to get her father out of a care home where he had been ordered to stay. Miss Maddocks had no lawyer to represent her, and no judgment was published. She served six weeks. In December we revealed how an Italian mother who had been forced by the Court of Protection to have a caesarean begged a family court judge in vain to allow her to keep her baby. Everything that happened to the mother, Alessandra Pacchieri, was decided by the courts in secret. In the same month we disclosed the case of the ‘irreproachable’ father who spent 12 years and £100,000 in the family courts trying to win the right to see his 14-year-old daughter – and who still has not won his case for access. Currently, secrecy in the family courts – which can remove children from dangerous parents, order them to be adopted, and decide on their custody – is governed by 1960 law. This makes it contempt of court to discuss a case when no judgment has been published, a crime punishable by two years in prison. Successive attempts to open up the courts have been thwarted. In 2006, Labour Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer blocked a law that would have allowed more light in because state-subsidised charities such as the NSPCC and the National Children’s Bureau opposed the idea. Labour’s 2005 Mental Capacity Act, pushed through by Lord Falconer, set up the Court of Protection. Its rules say ‘the general rule is that a hearing is to be held in private’. Sir James Munby, who took over a year ago as President of the Family Division, which includes responsibility for both courts, said his new guidance would take effect from February 3. He added that further guidance and formal legal practice directions will follow. There may yet be full Parliamentary legislation, although Sir James said this is ‘unlikely in the near future.’ He said that current rules are ‘inappropriate where family members wish to discuss their experiences in public, identifying themselves and making use of the judgment. ‘Equally, they may be inappropriate in cases where findings have been made against a person and the court concludes it is in the public interest for that person to be identified.’
New Advice to Protesting Parents
The new Munby judgment gives you all a lot of freedoms that were hitherto denied you. My advice is to take advantage of them! This is what I advise you to do:- If you feel your baby or child has been taken unjustly for no good reason you are now free to plaster the internet and all the legal blogs wherever you find them with protests from you personally. Local and national newspapers now have the freedom to print all the details that you give them except the names of yourselves as parents and your children, so give them all the gory details of how badly you and your children have been treated. Name the heartless social workers, the awful Guardian, the hired guns who call themselves experts and any foster carers who neglect or abuse your child, despite the huge sums of money they receive. Even more important name as often as you can the local authority responsible for taking your children, naming especially not only social workers but your local councillors who are directly responsible for all the children in care. If your local councillor or MP refuse to give you proper help, fobbing you off with the lame excuse that “we don’t comment on individual cases” ask them on the internet who elected them and what they are elected for, then give them all the bad publicity that you can manage and that they deserve. Yes you are now free to do this without restriction all over the internet, on Facebook, Twitter and on every relevant blog you can see including your own websites, if you have them. Try and get your case on radio, TV and in the local or national press. Most newspapers like to expose justices done to their readers but up till now the law has prevented them from doing so properly. From Feb 3rd 2014 new laws will allow them to “publish and be damned” as the Duke of Wellington famously said nearly 200 years ago. I call on all families whose children have been removed unjustly to rise up and protest so that there is a mini-revolution from all those affected and hopefully many of the injustices will be rectified and children will be returned to their loving parents. There is still much work to do because local authorities and social workers will not change their characters overnight. The end to secrecy is just the beginning because what we really need is the end to the family courts and social workers who act like police officers. We need child cruelty to be an affair for the police to deal with in criminal courts with criminal standards of proof that are fair to all participants alike. Punishment without crime is itself a crime so no parents should be deprived of their children unless they have committed serious crimes that can affect their capacity to care for those children. All gagging orders should be abolished and forced adoption should be outlawed. If all this happens we can look forward to a new era in child care and also care of the elderly since the Court of Protection will also be subject to the new rules. Thank you for reading this and I beg you to read it all again and then act upon it. Ian Josephs