The Golden Rules

Vital information from

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

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

In the UK only police and judges have the authority to give you orders but social workers have no power  at all except to frighten you!!Don’t talk to them  (The very first time they try to question you or lecture you ,Just say VERY QUIETLY AND POLITELY ” I am really very sorry but I have been advised NOT to chat with you !).

Forget the idea that if you cooperate with social workers they will let you keep your children and if you defy them they will take your children away .

The opposite is the case !!

These awful people  make their living taking away children like yours ! They have scorecards to see who can be quickest at this dreadful undertaking.

The ONLY reason they want to talk to you  and make you go to meetings where you are outnumbered and bullied is to make you admit to things they can use against you in court !

They can’t go to court without evidence so DON’T give it to them just ignore them instead ……….

They do NOT care about the health or welfare of you child only the money they can make from the agencies by arranging fostering or adoption. If however they get angry or aggressive by all means  ask them for their HCPC  registration numbers! (see below)

Never write to them,never sign anything they give you ,,never go to their meetings (You will be outnumbered by at least five or six to one and bullied accordingly),never let them in your house unless police are with them. They are your ENEMIES !!They earn their living taking children so tell your children never to  answer their questions but to say” mummy (or daddy) says we must not talk to you unless mummy is there too “.Never obey them especially if they threaten you !, You must never do what your enemies tell you to do ! (seems obvious but few parents realise this )If you do talk to them despite this advice RECORD EVERYTHING otherwise they will misquote you in court.Fight every step of the way and refuse every demand they make of you !Think of the “SS” as SPIDERS with a nasty web! If you enter the web at the edge (speaking to them ,discussing your case, and going to meetings) you will eventually be sucked into the middle (the family court system) and swallowed up ;(your child fostered or adopted).Refuse to go near their web (speaking to them etc) and you stand a good chance of surviving.

Never never believe what they say unless it is in writing (and even then be cautious),never sign any documents they give you, (Especially ,NEVER sign a section 20!) . What if a judge orders you to sign a document? I advise you in that case to avoid contempt charges by signing but adding over the signature in very bold letters “Signed Under duress to avoid contempt of court” as this will invalidate any document you have signed !Sometimes the judge will refuse to accept the document if you write “Under duress” and still threaten you if you do not sign normally.I advise in this case to say aloud in court”I request that it be noted that I AM SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT UNDER THREAT OF PRISON IF I REFUSE ! That too would render your signature worthless……….

Never allow social workers into your house,fit a small latch chain to your front door, so that if they push their way in and break the chain they will go to jail for “breaking and entering!”. If they then call the police let the police in but not the social workers),never make enemies of the police,

Never let the SS assess you, or send you to the psychobabble charlatans unless a judge orders you to do so. !These hired experts are paid to diagnose nearly every parent who is sent to them with non existent illnesses such as borderline personality disorders or narcissistic traits = you don’t like or admire social workers !Exceptionally ,if a judge orders an assessment by a psy it will almost always LEGALLY be a joint appointment agreed by both sides so always insist on choosing someone who does NOT testify regularly in the family courts or you will be yet again “stitched up !”.

Remember also that you cannot trust these experts,counsellors,your midwife or even your own doctor , solicitor or barrister as all have been known to pass on your thoughts and confessions straight to social services who will use them against you in court !.

What if the judge asks you why you refused to cooperate  with social workers and other “professionals”  such as solicitors?There are two good replies:-

1:- You answer that social workers DISTORT what you say to them so their reports are totally different from what actually happened ; Also that they were very rude,hostile , and often shouted at you saying that they would take your children from you and (when applicable) that your baby will be fostered or even adopted  no matter what you do or say !  Very difficult for any parent to work with people like that !

2:- You say that your solicitor and/or barrister refused to fight for your child/children , agreed with everything social services wanted and even stopped you speaking for yourself in court (if that is what happened) contrary to your instructions ;You therefore decided to represent yourself to try and rescue your child /children.

Mothers must also beware  of reporting the father of their children for sexually abusing them . New research suggests that family court judges are more likely to award custody of a child to a parent after they make an allegation of parental alienation in cases where the other parent brings up an allegation of child sexual abuse.Professor Joan Meier’s and Sean Dickson’s research published in 2017 found that family courts only believe a mother’s claim of a child’s sexual abuse 1 out of 51 times (approximately 2%) when the accused father alleges parental alienation.

De : Sharnie Dalziel []
Envoyé : mercredi 26 janvier 2022 18:03
À :
Objet : I was successful in Ireland

Hi Ian it’s sharnie I fled the UK who were going to take my baby of me at birth but the medical social worker called me in at hospital for being 36 weeks pregnant. The English social transfered all the concerns to the social department in Ireland that they were going to remove my son at birth so I got a parent assessment done and my son is now 4 month old and we are doing great. We have a social worker involved but we see her once a month because of what the UK social have said. I am wanting to go back and visit my kids in the uk and my Irish social worker is happy to let me take Charlie to meet my other children for the weekend but have informed my children social worker in the uk can the uk social workers swoop in and take my son even though we are just visiting and we are living in Ireland and the Irish social are happy with my parenting and are willing to let me go.

 IAN replied:-

Remember that if you have escaped UK with your child before any court decision you have not broken any laws and can visit UK whenever you like but NEVER NEVER take your child with you or it will be taken away for ever…………

If you know anyone that was in the same situation as me tell them to email me. Am out here in Dublin on my own with my baby I be glad to help. I know how it feels. I packed 2 cases at 36 weeks and just left they were taking my son just after birth. I went to wexford at first at 27 weeks pregnant. And the English social services told me they were not taking my baby so I gone back to England to my home. Then they waited to the very last minute to tell me they were just going turn up at the hospital and take him they thought that telling me right at the very end I wouldn’t be able to make it at 36 weeks pregnant. 1 week later she rang me I told her I was in Ireland and I plan on having my baby here she was so disappointed she said why you done this I would of helped you get him back. The same social worker that wasn’t going going tell me she was going to take him from the hospital?? They are wicked evil people.


Remember you have a choice “ignore the SS ” or “cooperate” and believe me neither choice guarantees success but time has shown that you have a much much better chance of keeping your children by ignoring the ss than by doing what they tell you !If you obey them even though they want to take your children (which makes them your ENEMIES)  you will probably give them the evidence they need in court to take away your children.

Ignore them and they often leave you alone to seek easier targets;Never “do everything they tell you “ as they are your enemies not your friends and their intention is to make you lose in court so they can take your kids for good !Everything they tell you to do is to help them take away your children for long term fostercare or adoption.I REPEAT !Never “do everything they tell you “ as they are your enemies not your friends and their intention is to make you lose in court so they can take your kids for good !Everything they tell you to do is to help them take away your children for long term fostercare or adoption.


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

Contact me at if you have any queries or need help.

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


  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 !:

  2. Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it!  A mother screams in agony as her newborn baby is ripped from her arms……….

  3. See the programme below on Channel 4 News

  4. Ian Josephs speaking at the ‘Children Screaming to be Heard’



The Children Act 1989 was NOT a “huge step forward”for children’s rights (as claimed by Lady Hale when she retired from Presidency of our Supreme Court);

In my opinion it was a huge disastrous step “backwards” !  4 fatal words  authorise the removal of children from parents for future risk. These 4 words are “likely to suffer harm”
This Act allowed children to be taken from law abiding parents via crystal ball predictions of future abuse ! Police will arrest a person who commits a crime but will never arrest anyone simply because they think that person just might commit a crime in two or three years time ! Social workers and other so called experts deprive children of parents on the basis of pure guesswork but as recent political events have shown us experts very often get their predictions all wrong !
Both Children and parents are punished by this system and are ;victims of “Punishment without crime”

Even more dangerous is the way this Act suppressed our democratic right of protest against a perceived injustice.Any parents protesting online or in the media when their babies are taken at birth (or later) are threatened with jail for contempt of the secret family courts if they do not stop immediately; This on grounds of protecting the families from unwelcome publicity even when it is the parents themselves who wish to protest ;Harriet Harman when she was Home Secretary revealed that about 200 parents per year are sent to prison for contempt;
Crowds in London can with impunity block roads to protest against Brexit,or Global Warming but a mother who has never committed a crime and whose baby has been snatched at birth will be warned to keep quiet and will be jailed if she persists in protesting publicly !

Even more cruel for older children is their treatment when taken into care;Uniformed police take terrified children from their homes at about 7am .Their lap tops and mobile phones are immediately confiscated to isolate them from family and friends.Once in foster care FREE SPEECH is dead for them .They are allowed only closely supervised visits from parents who have to sign an agreement not to discuss the court or even the possibility of returning home.They are also forbidden to speak their own language with parents or siblings if it is not English ! Both children and parents are forbidden to mention or discuss,abuse suffered in fostercare;Any breach of these regulations results in contact being stopped immediately and sometimes for good……..Murderers and rapists in prison are treated much better than children in care as they can phone out to friends and speak with visitors about anything they like in any language they like .What have these innocent children done to be treated worse than hardened criminals in jail?

How can anyone applaud these happening in our so called democracy?

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.


I am a social worker,
I’m really very nice.
I help you loving mothers,
And give you good advice!

Your partner has departed
Your income is too low.
I’m really very sorry,
All your kids will have to go!

Your partner is abusive?
He beats you black and blue?
We’ll soon be there to help you,
And take your children too!

You have a learning problem,
You’re really not too clever
We’ll get your kids adopted
When can you see them?? NEVER!!

Your son is hyperactive?
You need a brief respite;
We’ll soon take ALL your children
Give up the hopeless fight!

Your child was taken into care,
So many years ago
If now you have a baby
That too will have to go!

Foster parents love your kids
To get some more they seek,
For each one brings a tidy sum
£400 per week!!

Children’s homes are run by us,
Where paedophiles abound
Each time we cover up abuse
“The gutter press” come round

“They” said adoptions worked the best
We soon proved that they would
Fathers shout and mothers cry
Their kids are gone for good!

What happens in our Familyl Courts?
Our experts they will say
“You’re a danger to your children,
So we’ll take them all away!”

Your children may be healthy,
Happy and well fed
But one day you might hurt them
That’s what our experts said

The judges know that we are right,
With us they will agree
They dare not risk another course
You have no chance you see!

Our Family Courts are secret,
So don’t you breathe a word
Of what goes on inside those walls
No matter how absurd!

We’ll get your kids adopted,
And don’t you dare complain!
Or you’ll end up in prison
And I won’t say that again!

We have adoption targets,
They must be met you see,
Failure means a reprimand,
So spare a thought for me!


1)Life’s too short be NICE (being nasty or unpleasant never achieved anything)

2)Never attack( verbally or physically) anyone you care about but defend yourself vigorously if they attack you
3)DO IT NOW ! Postponing actions and decisions often means ending up doing nothing at all !

4) Never refuse a request for help from anybody but remember “help” need NOT mean dishing out cash . More often and more usefully it can mean giving good advice or taking positive action that really helps

5)Never hold grudges aganst friends or relatives you like or care for. Never refuse to talk with or meet with such folk as you will only make youself unhappy if you do !

 Remember too if you tell these “professionals” that you “love “your children, that for social workers  and their kind,”love” is a word they never use.They prefer to talk of “bonding ” with children in care,a word more applicable to the players in  professional football teams like Arsenal or Manchester United who certainly “bond” with each other but rarely love each other ! Best to IGNORE social workers telling them politely “I am very sorry but I have been advised not to speak to you “


The “SS” have absolutely NO authority even though they behave like police, so you are not obliged to listen to them or obey them !Their child protection plans , and similar activities have no legal standing whatever !You should obey orders from a judge in court and obey the police but never cooperate with social workers (unless they have been awarded control of your children via the award of a care order by a family court judge ! ) In that case you will have to cooperate with them to some extent otherwise they will brutally reduce or even stop your contact with your children.If the judge asks you to have a “parenting assessment” you will have to submit but make it very clear to the court and the “SS” beforehand that you will be recording everything to make sure there is no later misunderstanding as to who said what and to whom !Be sure to record yourself telling the social workers this this so that it can if necessary be used in court later !

Parents often proudly claim that they were open and honest with social workers admitting all their faults and mistakes! I can only say that if they were selling a second hand car and they honestly and openly admitted that the vehicle was a wreck that they had been trying to get rid of for months the buyer would think they were crazy and would bid them a quick goodbye ! Parents should not lie but equally they should not point out their faults and mistakes to the very persons seeking to exploit them and take away their children !

 The “SS” are your enemies(NOT your friends !)Anything they ask you to do or any courses they ask you to take (usually set up to fail you ) are for their benefit not your’s and are simply to make it easier for them to win in court and keep your children in care or send them for adoption!Their top priority is NOT the welfare of the children ;it is to WIN their case in the family court, so they will play every dirty trick in the book to avoid humiliating defeat and a black mark on their record!They will even give you a list of solicitors to “help” you !

Legal aid lawyers are mostly “Professional losers” who gag parents in court and do a deal with social services.They simply do not call parents to the witness box to speak so that if they do dare to say anything without being called to do so the judge will tell the unfortunate parents to sit down and shut up ! This will not happen if you represent yourself as you cannot then be silenced ;You will always be given your turn to speakHowever nervous you are in court and however ignorant you are of the law you are still better off representing yourself and speaking for yourself rather  than relying on an enemy who is determined  that you will not speak and that you will lose !You do not need a law degree to be a good parent or to say how much you love your children !

 Social workers will even say that you cannot discuss your case with others due to secrecy rules ! That is a LIE as you can discuss your case with any individuals you like but you cannot go on TV or go to the press revealing your name until after court proceedings have concluded. Parents are sent to jail (about 200 per year according to a former home secretary) for breaching the “privacy” of their child if they  “go public” (article 8 ECHR gives us all the right to a PRIVATE family life but is used to gag parents !) .

Social workers and adoption agencies however are given exemption and are allowed to advertise babies with colour photos ,first names,and character descriptions for potential adopters to pick and choose much like selecting a pedigree cat or dog !Imagine the horror of Crystal’s parents when they saw her “advertised” for adoption in the Daily Mirror !Her father was jailed for throwing an empty plastic cup in the direction of the judge when told his beloved daughter would be adopted…………


Only go on a course if told to do so by a judge or magistrate .Everything you say to them is likely to be distorted and used against you in court unless you record everything.Otherwise,if no judge has given you orders or “suggestions” I repeat that you should tell the social workers very politely “I am very sorry but I have been advised not to talk to you ” Say nothing more !

Police earn their living arresting people ,traffic wardens do it by issuing parking tickets and social workers by taking children from parents.All three have to justify their salaries by “results”Yes,social workers earn their living by” taking children” and will be in trouble if they do not fill up their scorecards !”See what the department of education has to say……..

  1. Adoption Scorecards
  2. The 2014-17 Scorecard data is with local authorities (LAs) for verification, giving LAs the opportunity to ask questions relating to their data.  Once complete, we will work towards the formal publication of the 2014-17 Adoption Scorecards and Children in Care and Adoption Performance Tables this spring.

As you may already know, the DfE has been working with the sector to deliver on the Adoption: A Vision for Change commitment to introduce Regional Adoption Agency Scorecards.  We know that LAs and RAAs need data to understand their performance and share best practice.  It also allows them to be accountable for what they have delivered. Therefore, from the 2016-19 Scorecard, both LA and RAA data will be included, and we will assess whether it is possible to include some RAA information in the 2015-18 Scorecard.

Ignore their threats and refuse their instructions ESPECIALLY IF THEY TELL YOU TO SPLIT UP FROM YOUR PARTNER as that way they can attack a single parent much more easily than a united couple. ! The more you “cooperate” with them the more likely you are to lose your children later !Politely refuse or even apologise but never obey them!

Barnum the circus man and con artist used to say “there’s a sucker born every minute” and that is what social workers believe when they question you in a seemingly sympathetic way about your childhood,your parenting problems,and your faults in general .Actually they are thinking “here is yet another idiot giving us all the evidence we need to go to court and convince the judge that we should take the children ! “So keep your mouth firmly shut when the “SS” come a calling if you don’t want to lose your kids !

I repeat again because it is so important……..Remember that you have a choice “ignore them ” or “cooperate” and believe me neither choice guarantees success but time has shown that you have a much much better chance of keeping your children by ignoring the ss than by doing what they tell you !If you obey them even though they want to take your children (which makes them your ENEMIES)  you will probably give them the evidence they need in court to take away your children.Ignore them and they often leave you alone to seek easier targets !

If they do take you to court to seek a care order  letting them legally steal your children (or grandchildren)sack your legal aid lawyers if they tell you not to fight care orders and not to speak in court yourself !(effectively gagging you !) Sack them and you will automatically represent yourself so you can speak direct to the judge and at least say why your precious children should NOT be handed over to strangers !Remember social workers want to WIN in court and will do everything possible to get “a win” thus making you LOSE ! It is therefore crazy to listen if they “give you advice”at home or outside the court during proceedings.  Above all never never believe what they tell you ! They need you to lose to fill up their adoption and fostering scorecards !


Social workers reveal reality of adoption scorecards

Following the publication of the government’s first annual adoption scorecards, Community Care asked councils for their feedback.

Nurse’s one-year-old son is taken from her care over Bob The Builder …

13 hours agoA qualified nurse has had a one-year-old boy taken from her care after a social worker raised concern about the way she let him sit in a Bob …


Social workers easily get emergency protection orders from compliant magistrates and then snatch babies at birth (even coming into the operating theatre to crow over the mothers with their news!);They have no interest whatever in the welfare of the babies and swiftly go to court to ask for an interim care order following a ridiculous prediction of “risk of emotional harm” supported by some expert who claims to be able to predict the future if he is paid enough but who is believed on balance of probabilities to be more convincing thah the parents ! Babies are then taken into care and subsequent adoption so the social workers can fill up their scorecards !

Murderers in prisons are treated very well compared with children taken into care because they are allowed to phone out to relatives and to discuss their cases with family and other visitors.
Children in the 7-12 sort of age group who are taken from their parents by police and social workers are put into fostercare with strangers and then have their mobile phones and laptops/tablets confiscated to isolate them from family and friends.
When parents are eventually allowed contact visits the children and also their parents are forbidden to discuss their cases,coming home,or any criticism of those who have removed them .Children and parents of foreign extraction are even forbidden to speak their own language  during contact visits and are forced to converse in broken English !
Yes murderers in prisons are treated much better than children taken into State care !

How can kids in care get in touch with their parents in spite of social workers determined to stop them by confiscating their phones?? Their are TWO easy alternatives !!


1:- Tell your children to use the mobile phone of one of their schoolfriends to phone you during a break or other quiet period!

or 2:-Tell your children to go to any public pay phone ,dial 100 and tell the operator that their mum will pay for the call if asked !

Simple really but distraught families often miss simple solutions ………..DEFY THE SS

There are far more children taken for emotional harm than those taken for physical or sexual harm put together (R.S.P.C.C. statistics) Most of the mothers who phone me (5 or 6 per day average) have had children taken for emotional harm or the risk of it and are law abiding citizens who are not drug or alcohol abusers as if they were the local authority would certanly mention it in their position statements;That is why the UK is the only country in the world where every week pregnant mothers flee to foreign jurisdictions to avoid the abominable crime of forced adoption! Fostering and adoption agencies then make millions of £s out of the misery of others cheered on by those who still support social workers and punishment without crime.

“This is the sort of thing that is alleged quite often, but this is a case where the Judge did actually make that conclusion.  It involves social workers and managers who set out to change the parenting assessment conducted by another worker (who the Judge found to be blameless) so that it reached different conclusions and painted a wholly different and negative picture and then lied to the Court about it. This is social workers interfering with the parents right to a fair trial. It really is deeply shocking stuff.”

Protect yourself against social workers with NO COURT ORDER barging uninvited into your home,either by looking through a spyhole in the door and refusing to open it if you don’t like your visitors or by fitting a small chain inside your front door. This means that if you do not unlatch the chain when you see who is calling that person would have to push the door hard enough to break the chain which would be a “forced entry “and a criminal offence if committed without a document from the court such as a “recovery order” specifically allowing entry using reasonable force. Unless they intend to actually arrest someone or have good reason to believe someone in the house is in danger of severe physical harm, police also would have to have a warrant before breaking the chain. Usually they will not have one and would have to convince a judge that a serious crime had been or was about to be committed before one was granted.Normally however I advise you to allow the police to enter unless there are very special circumstances ;simply because it is never wise to make enemies of the police if you can possibly avoid it ! If however they ask you questions in a hostile way you can simply remain silent .Say “I wish to remain silent” and stay that way ! You have the legal right to do this.

NEVER COMPLAIN NEVER EXPLAIN! Complaints about individual social workers ,fosterers,lawyers,doctors,or policemen are nearly always a waste of time as they investigate themselves and you risk being diverted from the more important task of keeping or recovering your children.Complaints against social workers often result in them taking your children or redoubling their efforts to keep them if they already have them !They are a vindictive lot !

If despite this warning you still want to complain about the police ;do it properly following the instructions on this link …

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

Always write recorded delivery to your doctor telling him not to reveal the medical records of yourself or your children to social services or to anyone else.

Always tell your children NOT to speak to strangers ,especially social workers at school or anywhere else.Just tell them to say “mummy or daddy told me not to”!

Never ask them for help .Probably more parents have  lost their children asking the “SS” for help than for any other reason.Cetainly most of the parents who phone me lost their children that way .

 Mothers beware especially of reporting the father of your children for sexual abuse of, or physical violence to your children UNLESS YOU HAVE DEFINITE PROOF.Time and again children have complained to the school and then to the police of horrible abuse, supported by the mother only to have the social workers blame the mother saying she had coached her child persuading her to make false accusations against her father !,  The children are then given to the  father accused of abusing them, despite their protests.

Vicky Haigh is one such case in point who I can name as she was named in parliament.As a result she lost her child and when meeting her by chance at a service station she was sentenced to 3 years in prison (reduced on appeal) for meeting her by accident (when her father drove up with her to fill his car with petrol), contrary to an injunction by the court forbidding her any contact ! BEWARE I say BEWARE as there have been many many similar cases of mother losing their children in the same way like the well known author “Jeanne d’olivier” (pen name ! You can read her story “the world and back” via Amazon or Lulu) BECAUSE THEY ACCUSED THE FATHER WTHOUT DEFINITE PROOF and were then themselves accused of “coaching their child to make false accusations against the father !; There are many many others who cannot be named like Vicky or Jeanne due to the secrecy rules of our family courts;

Vicy Haigh got 3 years jail for speaking to her daughter she had never harmed because she defied a court order forbidding all contact.Baby P’s mother who helped torture her son to death was allowed contact in jail !

Baby P’s jailed mother is reunited with her surviving children | Daily Mail.

May 15, 2010 – Tracey Connelly, who was imprisoned last year for her part in her son’s death, was allowed a supervised visit with them five weeks ago at a prison …

The “SS” do not care if mothers beat up their children but do everything they can to stop mothers who deny abuse (especially emotional abuse)  from having any contact at all with their babies or young children.

=rules for interviewing children that are frequently ignored !

A favourite excuse for taking babies at birth and young children generally is “risk of emotional abuse” ! This the “SS” justify by producing reports that father and mother have had many noisy arguments and shouting matches that would amount to a risk of inflicting emotional abuse on any children present or not yet born! Show me a couple of parents who claim they never shout or argue and I will show you two liars! Children quarrel with each other and understand when their parents quarrel.Taking children for mere risk of emotional abuse in such circumstances is monstrous and if that rule was applied in Italy for example every parent in the country would lose their children as they all shout and scream on occasions ;Nevertheless family bonds are on the whole much stronger in Italy than uk as Italians rarely leave the elderly on their own or in dodgy care homes ! 

By Christopher Booker

7:00PM GMT 17 Mar 2012

A long overdue scandal hit the headlines last week when a semi-official report exposed one of the murkiest corners of our child protection system – the way that supposed professional “experts” help social workers to remove children from their parents.

A study by Professor Jane Ireland, a forensic psychologist, for the Family Justice Council examined 126 psychological reports trawled at random from family court documents. It found that two thirds of them were “poor” or “very poor” in quality; that 20 per cent of their authors had no proper qualifications; and that no fewer than 90 per cent of the authors were not practising psychologists but appeared to earn their livings, wholly or partly, from writing reports for social workers. Already one psychologist, whose company has made nearly half a million pounds a year from such reports, is under investigation by the General Medical Council.

The picture Prof Ireland conveys is one with which I am only too familiar. I have seen how families can be torn apart largely on the basis of highly dubious psychological evidence designed, as John Hemming MP puts it, to “suit the demands of local authorities”. One mother lost her children, for instance, on the basis of a 235-page report, costing £14,000, which found that she was “likely to have a borderline personality disorder” – without the author ever having met her.

Just in case you missed the videos by bbc,itv,channel 4,and others ,in the previous sections of this book,here they are again !Click on the links to watch the BBC and ITV documentaries.

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

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

  1. Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it!

  2. See the programme on Channel 4 News

  3. Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform our family courts and social services all on one page !
  4. Click here for Kidnap of children from their mother by Dutch social services Using Fraud power abuse – YouTube
  5. See more examples of “punishment without crime” and “forced adoption” inflicted on loving parents and their children by UK social services and please tell others of this site .
  6. Care home girl abused by 25 men in 2 years.

    Care home girl abused by 25 men in 2 years | Mail Online

    Last updated at 11:32 27 August 2006 The horrific story of ‘Becky‘ is highlighted in a BBC programme presented by Fiona Bruce this week allowed her to be used as a prostitute for fear their intervention might infringe her human rights A 14-year-old girl placed in a council children’s home was prostituted to a group of depraved middle-aged men because staff were powerless to stop her going out. The horrific story of ‘Becky’ is highlighted in a BBC television programme presented by Fiona Bruce this week which reveals how she was sexually abused by 25 men over two years – despite being known to social services and having been placed on the Child Protection Register. Even when she was put in a children’s home – six months after her earliest allegations of abuse -staff allowed her to be used as a prostitute for fear their intervention might infringe her human rights. If the “SS” cannot prevent a young girl in their care from working as a prostitute then surely they cannot prevent other young people they “care for” from spending the day with parents if they so choose!Remember also that children of school age have a break so you can call them and speak to them through the railings without trespassing and nobody can stop you except a judge by serving a court injunction on you that will be too late to stop you reminding your children of their real family !


Unfortunately many mothers who have reported the physical or sexual abuse of a child have not been believed even when the child has initiated statements to teachers and made statements to police so they lose all their children either to the alleged abuser or to “care “;Sometimes it is better to take the children and go as far away as possible ,rather than take that risk unless there is hard proof of the abuse.

A TYPICAL STATEMENT FOR THE COURT Before the court  hearing you must file a statement because that is the evidence you need to put as “grounds” in your application and also what you should read out in court.


DELETE ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU (adoption  might not apply to your child for example ) and correct anything that is wrong (speaking of “children” if you only have one child for example


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

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


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

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

1:-I have never neglected or abused my children

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

3:-I have no problems with alcohol

4:-I have no problems with drugs.

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

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

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

8:-Mychildren have always been happy, well dressed,clean,never underweight,and always healthy when in my care.

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

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

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

12:- The UN Convention on children’s rights give children the right to participate in proceedings that concern them;yet I have been refused permission to call my son as my chief witness to prove that I have never harmed my children ,never neglected them,and that they  want to come home with me as soon as possible because they are very unhappy where they are in care.

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

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

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

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

Lastly, the President restates and approves various authorities on the standard of care expected of parents.  The President asserts that it is “vital always to bear in mind in these cases” and to recognise the “diverse standards of parenting” that must be tolerated by society.  The President cites Baroness Hale in Re B at para 15 (emphasis added):

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.”

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

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



NEVER COMPLAIN NEVER EXPLAIN! Complaints about individual social workers ,fosterers,lawyers,doctors,or policemen are nearly always a waste of time as they investigate themselves and you risk being diverted from the more important task of keeping or recovering your children.Complaints against social workers often result in them taking your children or redoubling their efforts to keep them if they already have them !They are a vindictive lot !

If despite this warning you still want to complain about the police ;do it properly following the instructions on this link …

Never explain your actions unless forced to do so by direct questions in court.If for example you are asked “did you go to London yesterday?” Reply simply “yes” if that was indeed the case .Never blurt out why you went,when you went,or more importantly what happened when you went as you may by doing this  give your enemies fresh information they can use against you. A simple yes,no,I don’t know,I don’t remember,answer most questions and a simple time, date or name can often answer the rest.Explanations usually make you sound worse not better ;so avoid them !Be the opposite in court of what the social workers say you are !If they say you are aggressive act timid ;and if they say you are too shy and withdrawn be a bit aggressive !

You must insist on speaking in court,be terribly nice to everyone and then speak from the heart about children and your love for them in a way the lawyers cannot do.Don’t attack social workers or the court system because even if you prove your social worker was a murderer and the fosterer a paedophile they might get sacked but you would not get your kids back. To have a chance of winning say the social services have made a mistake taking your children then explain in detail why the best place for these children is with you;If you do not speak in court, you usually cannot win .The only person who can stop you speaking in court and making the key points in your case is your own lawyer ! So if your solicitor or barrister refuses to call you to the witness box to ask you the open question “have you anything you wish to say to the court?” sack him/her on the spot and represent yourself because a lawyer who gags you is NOT on your side ! Oppose interim care orders even if your lawyer insists that it is better to “stay neutral” and neither oppose nor agree.That is the quickest way I know to lose your kids so don’t put up with it!

Never let social workers in your house without an appointment,(But if they have already visited and made a complaint ,clean up ,tidy up ,then take lots of photos throughout to show off your nice home to the court !)never go alone to any meetings they hold,never agree to voluntary care for your child,never admit to any fault (they don’t!),never be rude or unfriendly to them,but never obey them either!

Yes you can beat the “SS” as the letter below shows :-

Hi Ian I hope you are fine, I would like to thank you for helping me during my most difficult time. With all your support and advices ,I  have managed to get both my children back home. It was not an easy battle but I’m glad it’s over. Not out of the woods completely as they have placed me on 12 month supervision that include noticed and unnoticed visits. The most important thing is my children are back, I’m happy. I still got plans to move out of here in a few years time as I don’t feel safe anymore. I’m due to open a website which I will be writing about my situation and also giving advices. Would you allow me to mention your name and your website as I will be writing about how helpful you have been to me? Once again I thank you for all your phone calls, emails and advice on your website. Looking forward to hear from you :). Your’s sincerely Rose/Mimie

Judges and lawyers deliberately deceive parents !

If at the conclusion of the case the family court  judge as says the usual “I refuse leave to appeal”that is not final at all though both the judge and your lawyers would like you to think it is .They rarely tell parents the truthful position and later judges remark that the parent FAILED TO APPEAL as though this mean’t they accepted the loss of their children. Do not hesitate therefore to ignore the judge’s initial refusal. Just go back to the court and apply for an oral hearing asking for permission to appeal !

In the case of Vicky Haigh; L.J.Wall (at that time President of the family court) deceived the public when he claimed that Vicky had refused supervised contact with her daughter who had accused her father of sexual abuse and therefore was justifiably deprived of any future contact whatever !  What he omitted to say was that she merely refused to sign an agreement with the “SS” stating that she was quite content for her daughter to remain in full exclusive custody of her father  and only because she refused  to sign that document was she  deprived of all contact direct and indirect with her daughter for many years right up to the present day.Later when she met met with the father and her daughter at a petrol station where the father had pulled up to fill up his car, she was sentenced to 3 years jail for speaking to her own daughter as this mean’t she was breaking the court order forbidding her contact of any kind ! Wall also mentioned speaking of the earlier case “she did not appeal” failing to mention that as in so many cases the lawyers had failed to do so despite their client’s instructions . (too much like hard work?)

Here is a brief summary of my report on the failings of child protection in the UK;

1:- The Children Act 1989 enables babies and young children to be taken into State Care because it is deemed likely that they may suffer abuse in the future.

2:- As a consequence thousands of babies are taken from mothers at birth every year for “risk of emotional abuse” and forcibly adopted by strangers. Other children are taken for unexplained superficial injuries or because of parents who do not cooperate with” professionals”

3:-The motive for the rising numbers of children taken from law abiding citizens is mainly financial ;Some make a good living out of the expanding bureaucracy but others such as fostering and adoption agencies make many millions of £s as do Private special schools for children in care .

4:- Article 8 ECHR is used to jail parents who breach the privacy of their babies and young children by protesting publicly when their children are taken and so parents are effectively gagged until all proceedings are concluded;

5:-Children of school age, taken into care have mobile phones and lap tops confiscated to isolate them from family and friends. When parents are allowed contact they are not allowed to discuss their case , the possibility of returning home, or any abuse they suffer while in care. Foreign children are forbidden to speak their own language; Murderers in prison have none of these restrictions.

6:- Some parents who have accused the other parent of abusing their children and are accused of coaching those children into making allegations are forbidden all contact (direct or indirect) .Parents have been jailed for sending a birthday card, waving at their children in the street, or accidentally meeting them.

In my opinion legislation should be passed to stop the taking of children from parents who have not committed a crime against children, Also there should be free speech for both children and parents, with no gagging orders or restrictions on contact if parents have not committed any crimes against children. Forced adoption (contested by parents) should be abolished.

Judge blasts social workers telling them they ‘are not above the law’ after they remove nine-year-old from family then keep him away without consent

  • Judge Gareth Jones said social services were not above the law
  • He suspected proper procedures were not followed in order to save money
  • The mother won an injunction to have her son returned to her immediately
  • Barrister David Abberton said social services had acted unlawfully
  • Anglesey County Council claimed that it acted in good faith
  • Judge requested the case was made public to push council to improve

Judge Gareth Jones said that social services were not above the law

Judge Gareth Jones said that social services were not above the law

A judge has blasted social workers who he said illegally withheld a nine-year-old boy from his mother.

Judge Gareth Jones said that social services were not above the law and that he suspected proper procedures were not followed in order to save money.

Now the mother – who won an injunction to have her son returned to her immediately – is seeking damages from Anglesey County Council in North Wales.

Her lawyer, Frances Jones, today confirmed the child had been returned to his mother immediately after the injunction was granted.

She said: ‘As the mother’s solicitor I am delighted to have played a part in bringing the child home.

‘We are now continuing with the claim for damages.’

The child was taken in as a temporary case while the mother received treatment in a psychiatric unit but was not returned to her for five months for which there was consent.

When she came out of treatment she withdrew consent and asked for her son back.

However social workers refused and put him in foster care.

But they did not make applications for a care order first – so rights were denied.

Their barrister David Abberton took the issue to court and said social services had acted unlawfully.

Judge Gareth Jones, sitting at the family division of the high court in Mold, agreed and asked for his judgement to be made public so that lessons could be learned.

The court heard how the child had been taken to hospital with pneumonia in March of last year and the mother had a short stay in a psychiatric ward.

Read more:

Yes more often than not social workers DO LIE in court ! Why?? Because they want to WIN their cases not lose them .Winners get promoted and losers get humiliated in the Social Services so who wants to lose (even when mistakes have been made) ?Yes they LIE in order to win ! Therefore never listen to threats ,advice,or information about your children from social workers ,guardians,or Cafcass workers,as what they tell you is designed to help them WIN their case and to make sure that you LOSE !! See a typical example below where the lies were so outrageous that even the judge could not overlook them……….


If social workers took your child without your consent then act as follows:-

If the SS have no court order ;then AT THE NEXT CONTACT TAKE YOUR CHILD AND WALK OUT !! Above all do not warn anyone or tell anyone what you are going to do.If police are called show them the case………..

Council apologises over unlawful removal of child from mother

Family court judge says Gloucestershire council acted with ‘degree of subterfuge and immediacy’ that was plainly wrong

Gloucestershire council’s crest
Gloucestershire county council’s crest on a wall in Gloucester. Photograph: Alamy

Council apologises over unlawful removal of child from mother

Family court judge says Gloucestershire council acted with ‘degree of subterfuge and immediacy’ that was plainly wrong

Gloucestershire county council has apologised after it unlawfully removed a young child from its mother and placed it in foster care without giving the mother or father any notice of its intention to do so.

The action was in contravention of a care order that the council’s social workers had recommended to a court, which stated that in the event of the child being removed from its mother it should go immediately to live with its father. It took six weeks for the mother to get the child, who was breastfeeding when removed, restored to her care.

At a hearing at Gloucester family court on Friday, the judge Stephen Wildblood described the council’s actions as unnecessary, disproportionate and deeply traumatic for the mother.

He said the child, aged under two, had been taken from her care with a “degree of subterfuge and immediacy” that was “plainly wrong”. Unusually, he relaxed reporting restrictions in the case, after an application by the Guardian and the BBC.

On 1 June, having taken her child to a contact centre to spend agreed time with its father, the mother was informed by social workers that she should immediately attend a meeting at the council’s offices. There she was told of the council’s actions, in the presence of a police officer. No legal advice had been taken by social workers as to the legality of the summary removal.

Wildblood lambasted Gloucestershire’s children’s services for failing to consider alternative arrangements that might have kept the child with either the mother, father or other relatives. A paternal aunt had been approved as a foster carer but instead the child was placed with strangers.

Wildblood also criticised the council for failing to observe its legal duty to give both parents 14 days’ notice of any intention to remove the child. “In my opinion it is clear that the local authority acted in a way that was contrary to case law and in breach of the article 8 rights of both parents and the child,” he said. It was plain, he said, that the local authority itself had significant doubts about the legality of removal “but no legal advice was sought at the time”.

The mother, in her early 20s, was described as vulnerable due to her family history. The parenting concerns on which the council workers based their decision to remove the child without notice did not approach anything like the level required for such a measure to be justified, the judge stated. “This was not an emergency.”

Gloucestershire children’s services department was recently rated inadequate by Ofsted, with multiple failings identified in its previous senior management team. “None of the mechanisms that should have kicked in against wrongful removal did so,” said Wildblood. He said management failings in the case included lack of rigour and scrutiny by senior staff and the independent reviewing officer charged with oversight of the child’s care plan, and inadequate record-keeping by professionals of their meetings and decision-making.

In a statement filed the day before a hearing on 14 July at which the child was reunited with its mother, the guardian appointed to represent the child’s interests in court said she was “deeply saddened by the behaviour of this local authority towards the child and towards this vulnerable young mother”.

It is expected that the guardian will issue an application on behalf of the child for damages under the Human Rights Act.

Wildblood pointed out that the multiple mistakes made by the local authority came to light only because the mother, without any entitlement to legal aid at that point, made her own application to the court to have her child returned. “The very basis of the original care proceedings was that the mother is an emotionally fragile and socially vulnerable woman,” he said. “Therefore, for her to have faced the issues that arose on her own is manifestly unsatisfactory.”

The mother issued a statement saying that while she was “relieved and extremely happy that my child is back in my care”, it had been “an incredibly distressing and traumatic time”. She added: “While the local authority has accepted its failings, I hope that no other family suffers in the way my family has.”

Gloucestershire council said it apologised “to the court unreservedly that in our attempts to safeguard the welfare of this child, members of our children’s social care team breached the terms of a previous court order.

In a recent case, Judge Keehan said that a hospital’s willingness to keep a baby is not a reason to delay an application for an interim care order. He said a hospital cannot detain a baby against the wishes of the parents, and the capability of a maternity unit to accommodate a child may change within hours.

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

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

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

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

Misuse and abuse of s.20 is a denial of the fundamental rights of both the parent and child, ‘it will no longer be tolerated’ and ‘it must stop’.

Summary by Victoria Flowers, barrister, Field Court Chambers

Unlawful removal of a child, compensation paid

by suesspiciousminds

Her Honour Rowe QC considered this case, where a Local Authority removed a child and placed the child in foster care when at the time, the mother knew nothing about it.  It is a decision by a Circuit Judge and thus not any new binding law, but it is interesting and potentially important nonetheless.

Re AS (unlawful removal of a child) 2015

In this case, both the mother and father had mental health problems. On the 9th October 2014, the mother suffered a significant episode of mental ill-health. She arranged for a neighbour to look after her son who was aged 9, and to take him to school. She called an ambulance to take her to hospital.

She was admitted to hospital and was detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act.  She was not told until 16th October by letter (!) that Brent had removed her son from the care of the neighbour, whom they considered unsuitable on 9th October, using section 20 of the Children Act 1989.

Brent issued care proceedings on 11th November, and an ICO was made on 13th November 2014.  The child was thus in foster care on “section 20” from 9th October to 13th November, although mother had not consented, had not been asked to consent, and for at least some part of that time would not have had the capacity to consent.

It was not really in dispute that if Brent had sought an EPO or ICO at that time that the Court would have made one, the dispute was whether they had the legal authority to keep the child in foster care without an informed and capacitous consent from mother.

Judgement  :-

  1. …I accept that the removal of AS took place in good faith and that removal would almost certainly have been sanctioned by the court had the local authority applied for an EPO, however for the reasons that follow I conclude that the removal was unlawful.

NEVER,NEVER sign anything if they pressure you! Noone can force you to sign anything :not even the Queen,the Prime Minister,or the Lord Chief Justice !

If your children are already in care you may have to sign an “agreement”( under pressure) in order to see them at supervised contact sessions.They will ask you to promise not to cry ,not to say you want them home,not to talk about the case,not to say” I love you”(they hate that word!) or “I miss you,”etc etc .Try to delete the bits you really don’t like before signing (if that is the only way to see your children) and remember this sort of forced agreement has no legal force so you will not be breaking the law if later you break the agreement !

If however you have been persuaded into signing a section 20 (voluntary care)NOTE THIS CASE !

  1.  Surrey County Council –v- M, F & E [2012] EWHC [2400] a decision of Mrs. Justice Theis and at paragraph 60 she said this:-

“To use the section 20 procedure in circumstances where there was the overt threat of a police protection order if they did not agree, reinforced by the physical presence of uniformed police officers, was wholly inappropriate. By adopting this procedure the local authority sought to circumvent the test any court would have required them to

YES section 20 is used by social workers as a weapon of war !

“Sign this or we shall go to court and you will never see your children again” is the way parents are dragooned into signing a virtual death warrant as far as keeping their children is concerned.Any who dare ask questions are told “it allows us to take children to the doctor if they are ill” true enough as far as it goes but suddenly the parents are allowed only limited supervised contact and certanly not told that as it is listed as voluntary care they have the right to take their children home at any time . Of course the social workers more often than not have no intention of ever returning the children who are marked down for permanent fostering and possible adoption. – See more at: if they seek to secure an order, either by way of an EPO or interim care order.”

Do not believe their disgusting threats that “if you take the children back we shall go to court for adoption !” The social workers are your enemies not your friends so never consult them for advice or believe what they tell you as their objective is to take your kids whether you cooperate or not so why make it easier for them? They make their living taking children not returning them. If they had enough evidence they would have gone to court already but in fact they need more to go to court and hope you will give it to them at meetings and assessments ! Take your children back at once ! You have absolutely nothing to lose.

Re N

The President of the family courts says this at para 169:

This is related to the fourth problem, the seeming reluctance of local authorities to return the child to the parent(s) immediately upon a withdrawal of parental consent. It is important for local authorities to recognise that, as section 20(8) of the 1989 Act provides: “Any person who has parental responsibility for a child may at any time remove the child from accommodation provided by or on behalf of the local authority under this section.” This means what it says. A local authority which fails to permit a parent to remove a child in circumstances within section 20(8) acts unlawfully, exposes itself to proceedings at the suit of the parent and may even be guilty of a criminal offence. A parent in that position could bring a claim against the local authority for judicial review or, indeed, seek an immediate writ of habeas corpus against the local authority. I should add that I am exceedingly sceptical as to whether a parent can lawfully contract out of section 20(8) in advance, as by agreeing with the local authority to give a specified period of notice before exercising their section 20(8) right. – See more at:

Remember that you are free to take back your children any time!

At your next contact just walk out with your children and take them home ! If they try to stop you by force it will be an assault so they very rarely do it;

What if they call the police? Suespiciousminds blog gives you a suggested reply.

Here are the magic words, if the police say “we are going to take your child into police protection” or something similar.

“Officer, I’m not being difficult, but I see that you have come with the social worker, which means social services are already involved. And as the High Court said in Re CA 2012, where that is the case, the social worker ought to go to Court to seek an order from the Court, so my human rights aren’t breached by the police or social services. And you will know from the Liverpool case that the police shouldn’t just take a child into police protection to save the social worker the trouble of going to court. And so you should only take the children into police protection if the risks are so great that they can’t be kept safe until the case is heard in Court. I won’t do anything silly and I won’t run away. I will go to Court and the Court will decide. If you want, you can watch me with the kids, or they can go to (my mother/aunt Beryl/whoever) until the Court case starts, then you know everything will be fine.”

Home Office Circular 17/2008, issues guidance to the police in the use of their powers under section 46.

The guidance goes on to say at paragraph 15:

“Police protection is an emergency power and should only be used when necessary, the principle being that wherever possible the decision to remove a child/children from a parent should be made by a court.”

It goes on to say at paragraph 16:

“All local authorities should have in place local arrangements (through their local Chief Executive and Clerks to the Justices) whereby out of hours applications for EPOs may be made speedily and without an excess of bureaucracy. Police protection powers should only be used when this is not possible.”


In X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2005] 1 FLR 341, in the course of setting out a number of guiding principles in relation to emergency protection orders, Munby J held that ‘separation is only to be contemplated if immediate separation is essential to secure the child’s safety: ‘imminent danger’ must be ‘actually established’. –

YOU as a parent can apply for an emergency protection order if you think your child is being abused in care. Why not surprise the social workers by playing them at their own sad game?In general any person may apply for an emergency protection order under s44(1)(a) but the court may only grant the order under this ground if it is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if either:

  • He is not removed to accommodation provided by or on behalf of the applicant; or
  • He does not remain in the place where he is being accommodated

    1:- SECTION 20 :- Social workers tell hapless parents to sign this document otherwise they will go to court and get an order taking away the children for ever; No need to read it or to take a copy.Once signed it is explained that 7 days notice is required (illegally) to withdraw the consent given and that any such notice if given will result in a far reaching care order and permanent loss of the children.Yes some judges have condemned the misuse of section 20 but the process continues merrily on for the vast majority of section 20 cases rarely resulting in compensation penalties for flagrant abuses of the law by social workers and some family court judges .

    2:-POLICE PROTECTION:- If parents are reluctant to sign a section 20 some are told that it is only to allow doctors to examine the children and if this does not work police are called in to remove the children under” police protection” because their lives are in serious danger ! This happens even when no laws have been broken by parents and no injuries have been suffered by the children .The simple allegations of social workers (vague though they may be) are nearly always enough to cause the police to act as if they did not and something did happen to the children they would get blamed ! Once again some judges do condemn misuse of police protection in this way but the practice continues unabated with no penalties for flagrant abuse of the process.

    Police child protection powers in England and Wales

     In England and Wales, Police child protection powers concern the powers of the individual local Police forces to intervene to safeguard children. These powers are governed by Section 46 of the Children Act 1989. Under this law, the police have the power to remove children to a safe location for up to 72 hours to protect them from “significant harm”. Police do not require a court order to take such a step.

    3:- EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER:- Senior judges have pointed out that that the courts should order the removal of children in danger rather than police who need be called only in dire emergency when there is no time to go to court.That is the largely ignored theory.
    In practice even when social workers go to court they rarely notify the parents so they can easily make unproved and unopposed allegations to persuade compliant magistrates to issue orders for children to be removed .Such requests are rarely refused in case a child was later hurt or suffered serious abuse for which the magistrates fear they could be blamed.

    4:- INTERIM CARE ORDERS:- Since EPOs and police protection can only last for short periods eventually social services apply for an interim (temporary) care order providing a threshold of harm has been established;This is where the lawyers cash in ! Parents are urged to engage two solicitors (one for each parent) and often two barristers as well costing the taxpayer many thousands of £s! These treacherous leeches nearly always gag the parents saying” we’ll speak for you” and sometime advise them to wait outside the court to avoid getting upset;As one barrister remarked “My clients are like lambs to the slaughter” .These lawyers usually advise their clients to go along with social services and not to oppose the interim care order but to remain neutral neither agreeing to it nor resisting it. Inevitably the care order is then issued and the children are whisked off to fosterers who are paid around £600/week per child The fostering and adoption agencies published accounts all show millions of £s profits made out of the misery of usually law abiding parents said to be a risk to their kids;On the whole really abusive parents give courts a wide berth and do not fight for the return of their children;Parents who love and care for their children submit to gruelling court procédures but usually in vain as only one in 400 applications for care orders is refused !(judicial statistics).As L.J Thorpe admitted “the family courts are so prejudiced….”



Also beware of so called “counsellors” , psychotherapists,or even psychologists!ANYONE (including you!) can calll themselves experts in these professions as these titles are not protected.YOU can set yourself up and advertise your services as an expert psychologist today if you wish promising to cure the mental problems of others ! (no qualifications are necessary !.If on the other hand you are rash enough to go for “counselling” be aware that nothing you tell them will be confidential and anything you DO tell them will be passed on to social workers who will use what they have learned against you in court so that your child can be put into care. Even worse,sometimes your personal DOCTOR and your own SOLICITORS and BARRISTERS will pass on information they receive from you to police,schools,and local authorities.NONE of these people are 100% safe or trustworthy as many unfortunate parents have found out to their cost !Yes ,I  have many cases where this has happened !

Please be patient and allow me to repeat my earlier advice as follows :-Remember social workers are not police,and have no legal authority to give you orders as only a court can do that . They cannot stop you seeing your children as they come out of school ,and even taking teenagers out for a meal or a cinema visit.They cannot stop such children from sending and receiving emails from any public library,or making reverse charge calls from any call box if they dial 100; unless you have been served with a specific court injunction forbidding all contact.(and even then if the children send and you only receive you are probably still ok)

Remember also that if the “SS” threaten to take your baby or toddler because you missed one or two ante natal appointments or because you do not wish them to have your child innoculated ;remind them that no laws have been broken as no parent can be forced to accept any treatment that is medical in character; Missed appointments with doctors ,dentists,counsellors,psychologists or social workers break no laws unless an already born infant’s health is threatened.So, never let a judge send your baby or toddler to fostercare or adoption without reminding him/her of the legal position

Here is the reference for the DoH guidelines on Consent – published in 2009 but still current:

See epecially p. 19 para 44 on right of pregnant woman to refuse treatment.  Note also that consent has to be voluntary, and not coerced, otherwise it is not valid.   I also attach an extract from another DoH document.

See also case re St George’s healthcare Trust in this GMC document, which established the common law state we have today:
Protect yourself against social workers with NO COURT ORDER barging uninvited into your home by fitting a small chain inside your front door. This means that if you do not unlatch the chain when you see who is calling that person would have to push the door hard enough to break the chain which would be a “forced entry “and a criminal offence if committed without a document from the court such as a “recovery order” specifically allowing entry using reasonable force. Unless they intend to actually arrest someone or have good reason to believe someone in the house is in danger of severe physical harm, police also would have to have a warrant before breaking the chain. Usually they will not have one and would have to convince a judge that a serious crime had been or was about to be committed before one was granted.Normally however I advise you to allow the police to enter unless there are very special circumstances ;simply because it is never wise to make enemies of the police if you can possibly avoid it !

If social services request a look at your medical records (probably to try and find something to discredit you) ALWAYS write to any doctor or psychiatrist that has seen you as follows:

“I respectfully request you to keep all my medical notes strictly confidential as I intend to take legal proceedings against social services and any other persons who might obtain my medical details without my express authorisation”.

A parent advises re medical records

“Ian, I think it would be sound advice on your website to tell parents to obtain their own children’s records from the GP (£50 per child) rather than their solicitor obtain them ensuring that they confirm whether all THIRD party information has been shared otherwise I would not have known this as they are effectively trying to do a stitch up on the expert report. That’s my take on it anyway.”

Sarah  Never write a letter to anyone connected to Social Services as you might include something that could damage your case in the family court. Only accept a solicitor if he/she promises to allow you a free hand to speak in court! You should be asked this simple question in the witness box “Have you anything you would like to say to the court?” Without this promise you may be “gagged” and as already explained in Rule 4 you can lose your case without being allowed to say a word!


Remember above all that your objective must be to WIN YOUR CASE ! Not to “score points”, and not to discredit social workers,guardians ,police,judges or the system itself,as these tactics though satisfying will make sure you lose ! Never be untruthful in court but never antagonise the judge by openly disagreeing with what he says even if secretly you think he is a pompous idiot !If the judge in a final care case hints strongly that you will recover your children if only you will accept the findings of fact from the previous hearing or maybe if you agree to see yet another “expert” to assess you ,then humour the judge and accept what he says ! Remember that judges finally do have authority over you, whilst social workers have none Always present your case calmly and factually based on evidence not opinions so that it becomes obvious to all that it is in the children’s best interests is to stay with you !

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Remember also that social workers often LIE and say a child has been adopted when it is in fact still in care ! Only believe a letter from the court not words from the SS !

Christopher Booker

7:25PM BST 21 Aug 2010

Comments167 Comments

For once, after all the shocking stories I have reported on the secretive system that allows social workers to seize children from loving parents for no good reason, to send them for adoption, I can at last report a story where a family torn apart for nine years has been reunited.

Winona Varney was reunited with her family through Facebook

Winona Varney was reunited with her family through Facebook

When Winona Varney, now a pretty 16-year-old, recently fell into the arms of her mother Tracey at Truro railway station, they had not seen each other since she was seven. During that time, she and her 12-year-old sister Daniella have been living unhappily with an adoptive family, who repeatedly told them that their mother was a bad woman who did not love or want them. But when, in June, Winona managed to track her mother down, via Facebook, a short time later the two girls and their mother were again living under the same roof.

This harrowing story began back in 1997, when social workers from Cornwall county council received a wholly erroneous tip-off that there might be drugs in the house where Tracey lived with her partner. The day after the birth of their first child, a boy, they were made to sign an agreement that they would “work with social services”. Tracey then had two daughters, Winona and Daniella; but their father, who had been in care himself, had a strong aversion to social workers and eventually threatened one with violence.

On the social workers’ insistence, in order to keep her children, Tracey left her partner. She and they were sent to a mother and child unit in Staffordshire, where she often had to protect them from abuse by other inmates. Eventually, though there was no evidence that Tracey had harmed them in any way, the girls were sent for adoption, on the grounds that they were “at risk of emotional abuse”. They were taken in by a couple in a nearby Cornish village, and Winona was given a new name. (Their brother, however, was returned to his mother, after a year in foster care.)

Year after year, unaware of her daughters’ whereabouts, Tracey sent loving birthday and Christmas cards to them. But this could only be done through social services – who never passed them on. According to Winona, she and her sister were constantly told both by social workers and their adoptive parents that their mother was “a horrible person” who didn’t love them.

Tracey eventually found a new partner with whom she had two more daughters. In June this year, Winona managed to track down her mother through Facebook, and they arranged to meet at Truro station. They couldn’t believe their happiness at being reunited and more secret meetings followed.

When Daniella was told what was going on, she was initially wary, because of the lies she had been told about her mother. But twice the girls escaped at night through windows for further meetings, until eventually Winona rang the adoptive parents to say they were both going back to live with their mother.

Winona is so angry about what has been done to them that she has opened a page on Facebook entitled “Anti-Social Services Forced Adoption – We Can Help!”, to join up with other children in the same plight. She pays tribute to the advice she was given by Ian Josephs, the businessman living in the South of France who, through his Forced Adoption website, has helped hundreds of families who have fallen into the clutches of this corrupt and secretive system.

Not dissimilar was the case of Tammy Coulter, taken away from her mother by Derbyshire social workers when she was only seven months old, after an accident left her with a bruised cheek. After time in foster care, she was put out for adoption by a judge who said that, thanks to delays by the social workers, she and her mother would by now be strangers. Only after 17 years did she find her mother again through the website Genes Reunited, and was able to return happily to her birth family.

In 2006, Tammy told a London audience, which included judges, lawyers and Harriet Harman MP: “Finding out you’ve been adopted is one of the worst feelings in the world, because you feel that all of your identity, everything you’ve known about yourself, is a lie.” She said she was speaking out “on behalf of children and parents who have also been through the secrecy of family courts and the injustices that have taken place, and the devastation of one decision that determines the future of a child”.

After nine years of misery, Winona Varney would agree. She says that after going to college, she wants to get involved in child care – “but certainly not as a social worker, because I have seen what they can do”.

2 Von and Tammy on ITV local news – YouTube

Desperate woman loses six year adoption fight as High Court judge tells her she is no longer the child’s mother – Manchester E

Revoking a Placement order for Adoption
The Adoption and Children Act 2002 received Royal Assent and therefore became law on 7th November 2002. However, the Act finally came into full effect on 30th December 2005. One of the provisions was that “Freeing Orders” for Adoption were replaced by “Placement Orders”.
After one year has expired from the date of the placement order for adoption, the local authority are bound by law to inform the former parents whether an adoption order has been made and (if not) whether the child is currently placed for adoption.
If the child has not been adopted after 12 months then the parents are legally entitled to apply to The High Court for the placement order to be revoked (cancelled) on the grounds that they wish to resume parental responsibility. 
While the application is pending the adoption agency or local authority having parental responsibility shall not place the child for adoption without the leave of the court.

The links above give you official guidance on how to make an application to the court re children.

Court of Appeal gives important guidance on adoption applications

‘Sloppy practice’ must stop, warns Court

The Court of Appeal – comprising Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, Sir James Munby, the president of the Family Division, and Lady Justice Black – has given important guidance as to the proper approach to applications for adoption orders and for leave to oppose adoption orders.
In an unanimous judgment in Re B-S (Children) [2013] 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.” [30]

See especially:- Para34:-First, there must be proper evidence both from the local authority and from the guardian. The evidence must address all the options which are realistically possible and must contain an analysis of the arguments for and against each option. As Ryder LJ said in Re R (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1018, para 20 , what is required is: “evidence of the lack of alternative options for the children and an analysis of the evidence that is accepted by the court sufficient to drive it to the conclusion that nothing short of adoption is appropriate for the children.”

The same judge indicated in Re S, K v The London Borough of Brent [2013] EWCA Civ 926, para 21, that what is needed is: “An assessment of the benefits and detriments of each option for placement and in particular the nature and extent of the risk of harm involved in each of the options”.

McFarlane LJ made the same point in Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, para 48, when he identified: “the need to take in to account the negatives, as well as the positives, of any plan to place a child away from her natural family”.

We agree with all of this.

Re E 2013 EWCA Civ 1614

Judgment, Family Law Week

Appeal by mother against care and placement orders made in respect of her youngest child. Held that adoption was not a proportionate outcome. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the adoption order was set aside and the care order was replaced with an interim care order.

This case concerned an appeal brought by a mother of three children in respect of the care and placement orders made by HHJ Cushing in the PRFD in respect of her youngest child, S, who was 21 months at the time of the appeal.
The mother, her husband and their two older children were from Bangladesh.  The mother and the older children followed the husband to England where he was studying.  The mother formed a sexual relationship with another man, Mr U, who is the father of S.  The mother and Mr U spent significant amounts of time together during the day whilst the husband was at work.  Mr U would be left with the care of the children from time to time.  When S was 7 months old she was admitted to hospital having suffered an acute right-sided subdural haematoma on her brain, retinal haemorrhages and encephalopathy.  Fortunately S made a full recovery.  The local authority commenced care proceedings and S was placed into foster care following her discharge from hospital.  The husband, who by now had been made aware of the mother’s relationship with Mr U and S’s paternity, applied for residence in respect of the older two children, and succeeded.
HHJ Cushing conducted a fact-finding hearing and found that Mr U caused the injuries to S by shaking her violently, or imposing a shaking and impact assault on her.   The mother was absolved from any involvement in the process and from having any knowledge of what happened.  There was no adverse finding made against the mother.  At the final hearing in the care proceedings concerning S, the local authority sought care and placement orders, supported by the Guardian.  The adult psychiatrist and the child psychiatrist both supported a return of S to the mother’s care.  The judge favoured the local authority’s case and made a care order, dispensing with the mother’s consent to adoption and authorising the local authority to place S for adoption.  The main issue for the final hearing was the mother’s relationship with Mr U and her ability to separate from him.
The mother appealed.  At the appeal she argued first of all that the outcome was not proportionate to the factual circumstances of the case in light of the decision of Re B [2013] UKSC 33, and the guidance in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 that adoption is to be chosen by the court as the outcome only if “nothing else will do.” Secondly, the mother argued that the local authority had offered support, counselling or basic assistance to the mother to assist her in separating from Mr U.  Thirdly, the mother pointed to the fact that HHJ Cushing had not made express reference to the various welfare checklists in the relevant legislation or to the need for a proportionate outcome.
McFarlane LJ gave the lead judgment.  He commented on the importance of judges making specific reference to the welfare checklists and to the test required for dispensing with parental consent set out in section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, an exercise which Judge Cushing had not engaged in at all.
The Court considered the proportionality of the outcome of adoption against the evidence in the case. The conclusion was that this would be adoption for a young child from the care of a mother who was otherwise seen as a loving and capable mother; the child had a secure attachment to her; and there were no adverse findings against her.  An outcome of adoption was not proportionate in this case and was therefore wrong in the context of Re B.  The Court also accepted that the local authority had a role and an opportunity to assist the mother in separating from Mr U, but they had done nothing to assist her.
The appeal was allowed.  The placement for adoption was set aside and the care order was replaced with an interim care order.  The matter was returned to HHJ Cushing in the PRFD to consider an alternative placement.
Summary by Andrea Watts, barrister, 1 King’s Bench Walk
IAN JOSEPHS worries about family court procedures…… Now what could possibly bother me about the family court system??
1:-Forced adoption 2:-Taking children into care for risk 3:-Gagging parents 4-:Gagging children 5:-Refusing parents leave to call witnesses 6:-Choosing experts and refusing parents any say or having a second opinion.7 :-Branding parents as child abusers on the balance of probabilities 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” 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 and the child is gone.(”one strike and you’re out!) Yet injuries to children in fostercare are ignored and police usually refuse to investigate let alone prosecute !
A very fair” baker’sdozen” I reckon !


2:-Family Courts:- 99.7% of parents lose against the “ss” in court(National statistics) and those who win are usually those who represent themselves as most legal aid lawyers in family courts are “professional losers” not on your side at all ! .If you are a couple let one have a lawyer and the other act in person.State facts not opinions , never interrupt and you will at least have been allowed to speak unlike many parents who lose their children to adoption for life without saying a single word ! Answer all questions from police or barristers whenever possible by “yes”,”no”,I don’t remember, or “I don’t know” . Never complain about any social worker or police officer in court.Sometimes the judge will ask you if you think there is a conspiracy against you,pointing out that social workers,mental and medical experts,lawyers,and the guardian are all against you so how can you think you know better than all these highlyqualified people?This is to try and ridicule you and make it look as though you have a persecution complex ! Always reply “NO” of course not! Tell the judge that social workers try desperately to COVER UP THEIR MISTAKES .Say that is what they are doing in your case and that civil servants are notorious for trying to cover up mistakes rather than admit them !Recite boldly:-

  Birds of a feather flock together”

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

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

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

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

Sometimes a mother or father will be told by a judge “your child does not want to return home or even to see you any more !” The guardian and the independent social worker say this and surely you do not claim that these respected and experienced professionals are liars?”Reply that the child is frightened and maybe saying what these people want to hear.Point out that the only reason these experts object to the child being interviewed in court or on video by both sides is because they would look very foolish if the child begged and pleaded to” go home to mummy” (as most would do) exposing their professional failure.Sometimes the only way for the local authority to secure a verdict is to suppress first hand evidence from the child and to rely on hearsay from social workers etc . Social workers often video children to support their case . It is  not fair at all for any court to disregard the United Nations Convention on the children’s right to be heard in proceedings that affect them;purely to avoid them pleading to return home Plead in court for the law to be obeyed and the child to be heard in person !

Simon Hughes, Minister for Justice recently made an important speech in which he 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.

The Hague Convention demands that children be returned to or allowed to remain in the country where they are “habitually resident” .There are however important exceptions.

“Child objections”
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.
Article 13(b)
… the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that … there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights Decided( above) that the best interests of the child would be the deciding factor to determine whether that child could remain in Ireland. Previously the question concerned “habitual residence”.

Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland

A Momentous and Disturbing Ruling in Europe on the Hague Abduction Convention

183 days(6 months) residence to claim full benefitsin Ireland .

Never walk out and leave a family court in session as that is a surrender to the “ss” allowing them a free hand to establish lies that become facts against you that you will never be able to dispute. Never write letters to the judge or to the”ss” as they will achieve nothing and may even hurt your case.

3:- Only agree to using parent assessors,psychologists, and other professionals who are known to you as honest,or who are recommended by people you can rely on.Avoid the so called “professionals” selected by the “ss” who are regularly paid outrageous fees to discredit you !

Remember the motivation of the ss is usually CASH!The money train goes like this….. Your family allowance for a first child = £20/week approx.If your baby or child goes into private foster care the fosterer gets on average over £400/week ! The agency that recruits the foster families and finds adoptive parents gets over £27000 for finding an adoptive family,and over £1500/week for each child placed in foster care ! Recently the “National fostering agency ” founded a few years ago by social workers and one of many in the UK, was sold for £130million ! Nice work if you can get it …..


—  The  social worker is coming! —
Watch SS take baby from mother.Channel 4 revealed the emerging informal network which helps parents flee with children from UK Social Services before they take their children.See the Channel 4 video here.BackgroundInterference in families, the making of judgements which affect the rights of parents, and the removal of children by family courts or social workers, must conform to conditions laid down in several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.There are 65,500 children ‘in care’ in England alone. Local authority care order applications to court to remove children from their parents are at record levels. According to human rights activist, Ian Josephs, over 25,000 families in the UK are destroyed every year by the UK secret family courts.The family court and state care systems are on the verge of collapse. Despite this, Social Services are taking children that could and should stay with their parents. Where parents cannot really cope with their children, those children would be far better off with grandparents or other relatives than they would be if Social Services seized them. Many more children are in the care of grandparents than the state where steps were taken to move them before Social Services intervened.In June 2012, an All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Runaway and Missing Children found that the Government was under-reporting the number of children going missing from care. While the official figure for 2011 was 930, the report found that, according to police data, an estimated 10,000 individual children had gone missing. This means that children in care are far more at risk than those left with families and the All-Party group was not looking at all those who in addition would end up with social and psychological problems including criminal records.As the figures for physical and sexual abuse have levelled out (sexual abuse went from 2,000 in 2008 to 2,200 in 2012), Social Services invented ’emotional abuse’ which increased from non-existence to 12,233 in 2012. This is now the number one reason for seizing children. It often includes being afraid of an abusive ex even after a woman has left him.See the ‘experts’ who can take your children.(The full report is at safe code for UK parentsObtain passports for your children as soon as they are born ( In an emergency, there is a fast-track system for obtaining passports.
Avoid all contact with social workers.
If a teacher is asking your child questions about you, change him or her to a different school.
Do not allow access to your children to counsellors, psychologists and, above all, psychiatrists. Under no circumstances, allow a psychiatrist to prescribe drugs for your children.
One does not want to be paranoid, but if you are in any doubt or fearful become familiar with the steps outlined here so that you can act swiftly on them if ever you need to. Remember that your biggest threat is that SS will regard you as helpless and worthless and treat you accordingly. If you act strong and resourceful, they will smarten up and may back off. They will at least not take you for granted. You can demonstrate that you know your rights and are able to strike back.Where you stand legally To find out where you stand legally go to the section on Fleeing to Ireland where the rules are the same for flight to any other country.If you need urgent help Social Services not yet involved
Social Services are already involved

We have a thriving network of estate agents in over 45 countries generating business through Daft every day. While many websites claim to be popular
Dear Ian

I am in the Gambia on business and what a place.

This I believe is a safe country for families, flights are cheap, it has not signed Hague convention. Does not like UK Gov

no Visas required for brits

Very low crime rate

Very cheap and good quality living

It would be very very cheap to setup a refuge here

Paul Randle-Jolliffe Esq

Land Line: +44 (0) 207 193 9991 Mbl: +44 (0) 7 806 88 3919

Fax: +44 (0) 871 266 8130

Hi Ian Are there still families travelling to Ireland? if so, now we are established, could help a family get sorted! I have a friend who has some cheap properties etc.

The SS in Donegal are making cutbacks and i know are short for cash, so it might be a favourable time for a family or 2.

Let me know

hope your well

As discussed I copy an extract from our guardians affidavit where he makes it clear that he doesn’t believe Oliver should be returned to the UK as he would be most likely adopted! Given the guardians background and passed professions, I think that him admitting this is saying a lot.   “20: In my opinion given the considerable delay in the plaintiff moving its application a situation now exists where it would be detrimental for Oliver should he be moved from this Jurisdiction. As referred to below it is my opinion that the District Court is adequately suited to dealing with Oliver’s needs and any rationale for transferring to the proceedings to the court in the United Kingdom is obviated by this fact. Furthermore, as was the view expressed by Mr Justice Coleridge in the Family Law Division of the High Court in England and Wales, there did not nor does there now exist any reason why two different courts cannot deal with the separate aspects of the child care proceedings for the two child of the relationship between Mr and Mrs Austin, Elisa and Oliver will not be placed in the same environment should he be returned to the UK. THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO IS THAT IF HE WAS RETURNED HE WOULD BE MADE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN INTERIM CARE ORDER AND SHORTLY THERAFTER BE PLACED FOR ADOPTION UNDER THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURES THAT EXIST FOR THIS IN THE ENGLAND AND WALES….”

Its been a yr I think since I last contacted you

I won after a years battle with Basingstoke Childrens Services to get my baby Son back

they took him because I verbally defended my  my ex partner who became mentally unwell

I was forced to make him my ex partner or they would not let me have my baby back they tried to keep my baby Son regardless

Its been a nightmare but you were right you cannot work with them you have to fight

You have to fight them

Stop speaking to them

Instruct your Solicitor

Instruct they have no plan to save you

Instruct your Barrister they have no plan either

I did not follow their advice  I went with my instincts

I got rid of the care order I fought a supervision order after and ended up with a family assistance order for one year

They are with out doubt

1- Corupt

2- Agressive

3- Liars

4- Trying to keep childrens and babies for government bonus for adoption( my Siste thinks Hampshire Childrens services madea million not sure I am reseraching it)

5- they tried to adopt my baby I said from day one they have an agenda

6- They deliberatley turn down family members to Foster so they can keep your baby

7- They tried to pretend I was (mentally ill, delusional, a suicide risk, a flight risk, an emotional risk to my baby a physical risk to my babyand volitile) ALL of which i proved to be totally false

Thank you for supporting people

all you said about they are the enemy is 100% true

Hi Ian,
I dont know if you remember but we spoke in October last year and you advised us,due to Worcestershire social services bullying tactics to leave the uk immediately for Ireland…well we took your advice and we did.
It was extremely difficult the first 2weeks until we got the kids into school but now,nearly 4 months on we have never been happier but,isn’t there always a but,the SS over there will not let go and are threatening to extradite my kids back to the uk…let me explain…when we arrived hereafter obtaining PPSnumbers for us all SS found out where we were living(in the middle of nowhere)and sent the Gardai and Ireland’s SS to see us.they spoke to us for 20 minutes and left but we agreed to let them see the kids when they wanted to….well,after seei g my kids TWICE,and the Gardai making ONE unannounced visit SS here are of the notion that there’s no problem with my kids and are going to close our case in the next month,can I just say Worcestershire SS PHONEDmy eldest daughters principal DEMANDING that the kids are brought back to England immediately as they are at risk of emotional harm,the principal argued with the social worker and told her that she had met all my family and the is NOTHING wrong with any of the kids and their heavy handed tactics very nearly destroyed a perfectly normal family,she also old them that in her opinionWorcestershire SS have handled our case deplorably and the UKs loss is her gain as my daughter is a brillliant student who is learning FIVE Languages, my daughter has also been moved up a year due to her intelligence and will be doing her leaving certs 2years early,not bad for a child who is at ‘risk’ is it?! My kids are also on the Irish foreign births register due to my family coming from Dublin and we will all be obtaining irish passports in the near future.
We love it here Ian,my kids are so happy at home and at school .

Many thanks Ian
Sara and Wayne

PS We found very reasonably priced accommodation near the N.Irish border via an agency called “DAFTIE
I don’t know if you recall that we were  arrested at Gatwick Airport last year when we and the kids were en route to the states.
Well,we were charged,me with the absurd child cruelty and perverting the course of justice and Sara with Perverting the course of justice. To cut a long story short we had an application to dismiss hearing last week(3rd march) and all charges were dropped,the judge APOLOGISED to us for our abhorrent treatment and told the CPS Barrister that this case should NEVER have gotten this far and that it has been brought with no evidence and told us to get back home to Ireland and have a great life.Basically,our Barrister told us that it not so many words that we were subject to Malicious Prosecution,Police abuse of power/process and were subject to extreme treatment by both the Police and SS.
I would like to ask you if I may If you know of any good,civil case Lawyers who would be prepare to fight West Mercia Police and Worcestershire SS.John Hemming said this case is a substantial claim and action should be brought against both.Also,if Christopher Booker,or any other Journalist want to run a story on this we have no problem now as our cloak of secrecy is now over,and our story is a good one as you know!
Thanks Ian

Dear Mr Joseph’s.

I spoke to you yesterday concerning my new granddaughter and my sons access.

Thank you for your advice, regarding collecting the baby from hospital. You were absolutely correct about the sequence of events that followed. They said first she has to stay on, but when questioned about both baby and mothers health, they had to admit both were fine. SS then got involved, and insisted they stay for  the remaining 5 days in hospital. We then asked where the signed order was that demanded this. ( they never had one) so then the threat of the police came up. We then insisted they call the police, but surprise surprise they didn’t.

We have both other and baby safe at home. Thank you once again. We just hope we have the strength to get my son access.   Many thanks Paul Day



Dear Ian, how right you were urging parents to fight! my son is back!!!

1.Yes, my campaign of protests, going to Europarliament, appealing to MEP Zdanok, to You , John, placards, TV inteviews finally gave a message to Medway council and their cohorts that they could lose a lot. to by keeping my son in foster care. A family worker Michael Horlock attended my home lots of times, my meetings with Justin became more and more frequent. She wrote a report totally contradicting what psychologist wrote . Now I appeared to be a good parent, surprise , surprise… Furthermore, I went to NHS and discovered surprisingly that there is no need for CBT therapy. In every meeting I insisted that Cafcass worker Camilla Doolin and psychologist Celest Van Rooyen are criminals guilty in perjury and misconduct in a public office. What is interesting is that my son is still under care order, but stays with me. Later they will be going to appeal to the court to discharge this order.

2.My criminal trial for neglect still stays. I would highly recommend a solicitor Robert Berg from Janes solicitors. He agreed for a not guilty plea. There is nothing there.He wrote representation to CPS asking them to drop my case. Still wait for an answer. A barrister working for the police agree that case should be dropped,however, for the time being it has not happened. It remains to be seen and evaluate an extent of damage being brought to my son by this year in a foster care. Thank you for your ongoing support. A lesson I learned is that only ferocious opposition could bring child back home.

Kind regards, Eugene Soifertis.



As discussed I copy an extract from our guardians affidavit where he makes it clear that he doesn’t believe Oliver should be returned to the UK as he would be most likely adopted! Given the guardians background and passed professions, I think that him admitting this is saying a lot.   “20: In my opinion given the considerable delay in the plaintiff moving its application a situation now exists where it would be detrimental for Oliver should he be moved from this Jurisdiction. As referred to below it is my opinion that the District Court is adequately suited to dealing with Oliver’s needs and any rationale for transferring to the proceedings to the court in the United Kingdom is obviated by this fact. Furthermore, as was the view expressed by Mr Justice Coleridge in the Family Law Division of the High Court in England and Wales, there did not nor does there now exist any reason why two different courts cannot deal with the separate aspects of the child care proceedings for the two child of the relationship between Mr and Mrs Austin, Elisa and Oliver will not be placed in the same environment should he be returned to the UK. THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO IS THAT IF HE WAS RETURNED HE WOULD BE MADE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN INTERIM CARE ORDER AND SHORTLY THERAFTER BE PLACED FOR ADOPTION UNDER THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURES THAT EXIST FOR THIS IN THE ENGLAND AND WALES….”



One thought on “The Golden Rules

Comments are closed.