Wicked – Wicked – Wicked !
Social Services abuse the babies they should protect by taking them from their mothers and giving them for adoption by strangers.
Typical Case Scenarios – 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – Conclusions – Contradictions
“Damned if we do and damned if we don’t” is the pathetic defensive mantra of the ss child snatchers ! This means that they are damned when they DO take BABIES and children from mothers who cry and plead in vain in the secret family courts(press and public are excluded) to keep their BABIES since nobody has ever accused these mothers of causing them PHYSICAL harm. They are damned when they DON’T take children who have massive injuries , cigarette burns ,and broken bones inflicted on them by parents or “carers” who wouldn’t dream of going to court to try and retain the children as they would be only too pleased to be rid of them !!
MORE THAN 3000 BABIES PER YEAR EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS HAVE BEEN SNATCHED BY SS AND PUT INTO CARE PRIOR TO ADOPTION (The figures for babies put into care over a 10 year period come from the answer to a question put in parliament to the Minister for children by Tim Loughton MP in 2004.) Any mother who already has a child in care and who gives birth to a new baby AUTOMATICALLY has that baby seized at birth by heartless social workers anxious to meet their adoption targets. Changed circumstances are rarely taken into account.The Times
Your Experiences with the Social Services: From the highly recommended “fassit” site,an interesting list !
Social Services took my Angels and split a loving relationship
Punished for just trying to Protect my Children
A Chance to be a Dad
Let the ‘Tate’ Girls Go Home
My Torment at the Hands of the Social Services
My ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ Hell
My kids are my life
Lives ruined forever!
A Story of Vicky’s Life
The Abuse of my Daughter and Grandchildren
DC – The Right to be Heard Social Services put my children at risk
Social Keyhole Services?
My Life Ruined by Care
Beginning to the End of Victoria’s Life
Separation and Loss to utter Betrayal
My Stolen Family
My little girl was taken from me for getting nappy rash.
No contact with my Children for 9 years
A Final Farewell to Injustice
A Family treated worse than Criminals
Essex Social Services lies took away my Children
The Cruel Injustice
A True Story Beyond belief
When ever I think of social workers
I was in Foster care for 7yrs
The Day the SS Came to Ruin our Lives
A Loving Father, A Great Teacher, A SS Victim
A Family being Torn Apart
Victim of a Witch Hunt
True story of my Little Angels
Chris Owen The ‘SOCIAL SERVICES’ Interrogators
Mother speaks out against Injustice
Mum takes Child Appeal to Number 10
The Heartbreaking Abuse of Power
Social workers prey on the helpless.They snatch babies at birth from mothers desparate to keep them because they predict” risk of emotional abuse” and then give them for adoption by strangers.At the other end of the scale they snatch elderly people from the care of their spouses and put them in expensive so called “old people’s homes” They pay for all this by ejecting the surviving spouse from the house the couple have lived in for years, so that they can sell it to pay the fees for the nursing home after the old person’s bank account has been looted and exhausted.All this is sanctioned by a particularly nasty bunch of parasites composed of the “ss”,so called “experts”,compliant judges and magistrates,guardians,and others who live off a horribly corrupt system.Never was it truer to say “birds of a feather flock together !” The sooner child cruelty is once again a police matter dealt with by the criminal courts and those treacherous social workers are sacked and forgotten the better. Parents will then breathe easier and no longer fear taking children or the elderly to a hospital for fear that they will lose them to the pitiless control of those living off the family court system !
Websters’ MP: Stop cash for adoptions
By LAURA COLLINS 7th July 2007
The MP of a couple who lost three of their children because of a false abuse claim has called for an end to Government adoption targets. Liberal Democrat Norman Lamb said the targets, introduced by Tony Blair, ‘provide a perverse incentive’, with councils winning cash rewards if a specified number of children are adopted.
Mr Lamb, who also wants family court proceedings to be opened up, has applied for a Commons adjournment debate over the tragedy of Mark and Nicky Webster.
Saved: Nicky with baby Brandon
Their three eldest children were taken from them by Norfolk County Council because one had a fracture that doctors said could only have been caused by physical abuse.
But later, four eminent specialists found that the boy was lactose-intolerant, would not take solids, and was probably suffering from scurvy, which would have made his bones brittle and liable to break.
These experts gave this evidence for Mark, 34, and Nicky, 26, from Cromer, when they won a landmark court fight to keep their fourth child, 13-month-old Brandon.
The Websters are fighting on for the right to have contact with their lost children, who are with separate families, but have been advised that the adoption order is irreversible.
Their story could only be told after The Mail on Sunday and BBC won a ruling allowing the media to report a family court case for the first time.
North Norfolk MP Mr Lamb said: “Theirs was an appalling miscarriage of justice and part of any proper discussion must mean rethinking social services’ adoption targets.”
The financial incentives were introduced in 2000 in an attempt to see adoptions rise by 50 per cent. The number of babies taken into council care in England before being adopted has risen from 970 in 1996 to 2,120 last year.
Mr Lamb said: “It ought not to be a factor that taking children into adoption means the social services bringing in money from the Government.
“I’m sure that when these annual targets were set, they were done so with the best of intentions.
“But it brings a financial motivation into a process which just should not be influenced in that way.”
The Mail on Sunday has learned that a county council, which cannot be named for legal reasons, has won an injunction preventing ITV’s Jeremy Kyle Show from featuring a mother whose five children, all under six, are being adopted forcibly.
UPDATE 2009 on the WEBSTERS !!
After two years of delays and prevarications from the local authority the Webster’s appeal finally got to court.The authority argued that following the two year delay(for which they were largely responsible) the children’s best interests were to remain with their “new” families with whom by then they had well and truly bonded.The judge agreed with the local authority despite conceding that the Websters had probably suffered a massive injustice as it seemed on the evidence that the children should never have been removed in the first place !
The judges concluded that they had no powers to overturn an adoption unless it had been obtained by fraud or without the knowledge of the parents,and neither of these conditions existed in the Webster’s case.They approved the usual “closed adoption” which mean’t in effect that these stoneyhearted judges deprived the Webster parents and their son baby Brandon of all contact with the three adopted children. Their only hope being that when the children reached the age of 18 they would be curious enough to try and trace their real parents despite their false birth certificates with false names supplied by a conniving and deceitful State !
The Webster family pleaded in vain for at least once a year contact so they would at least know if their children were happy or sad,healthy or ill ,even alive or dead but this was ruthlessly denied them.Surely this was a breach of their basic human rights?
Surely also it was baby Brandon’s human right to have some contact with his three siblings?Such abuses of family human rights were once again completely ignored by judges to whom such insignificant claims were apparently beneath even their slightest consideration !
————————–
Council placed four-year-old in foster care of suspected paedophile then spent £23,000 trying to keep blunders a secret
- Bristol City Council left girl with family despite suspicions the father had accessed child pornography
- Despite child’s identity being protected, council said all details of the case should be kept from newspapers
- Its expensive bid to hush the scandal up cost thousands and was overturned at the High Court
Daily Mail, 13 March 2013
A council spent £23,000 of taxpayers’ money trying to gag reporting of a case where it had placed a four-year-old in foster care with a suspected paedophile.
Bristol City Council tried and failed to obtain a High Court injunction which would prevent embarrassing details of the case being made public.
Social services took nearly three weeks to remove the girl from a foster family, despite the father being under suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.
Bristol City Council has been branded a ‘disgrace’ for leaving a girl with a suspected paedophile and then trying to hush it up using taxpayers’ money
He later killed himself after police took a laptop away from the property which contained a cache of child abuse images.
Despite the little girl and the children of the suspected paedophile being automatically granted media anonymity, the council still tried to obtain a blanket gagging order.
On the final day of the two-week hearing in October last year, the council’s barrister Jo Lucas went to the civil court to get an injunction banning any reporting of the case.
Temporary restrictions were then put in place to prevent publication of Bristol City Council, or the names of the social service workers who failed to protect the little girl.
But these were overturned in London’s High Court in January following a costly three-month legal wrangle.
Mr Justice Baker ruled it was in the public interest for the story to be published, but that the identities of the girl, her family and foster family should all be protected.
A Freedom of Information Act request has now revealed that the ‘external cost’ of the legal wrangle to Bristol City Council came to £23,528,40.
Bristol City Council’s expensive bid to stop their errors being reported was overturned in London’s High Court
But the true cost is likely to be much higher as the quoted figure does not include the time council employees spent working on it.
The hefty bill included £11,730 for legal advice, preparation and representation by Robin Tolson QC for two High Court hearings in London and one in Bristol.
The council also paid the legal costs for the foster family, which came to £3,623.40.
However, a spokesman for Bristol City Council today insisted the legal action was only taken to protect the identity of the child.
‘The object throughout was only to protect the identity of the child,’ he said.
‘It is important to realise that automatic reporting restrictions in respect of children subject to care proceedings do not last once the proceedings have ended…
‘The council did not think that this was in the child’s best interests and, as the press were already involved and had attended some of the hearings in relation to the care application, we considered that we had no option but to seek to protect the identity of the child beyond the care proceedings.’
Mr Justice Baker said Bristol City Council’s bid to cover up its errors was ‘unjustified’, adding: ‘It is in the public interest for these matters to be published’
The case at Bristol’s Family Proceedings Court heard that concerns were first raised in March 2012 when the girl had been living with the family for three months.
Police informed social services that child sex abuse images had been accessed at the house for the second time.
Unlike the first incident, which was blamed on a foster child at the house, the police strongly suspected the father had accessed the sick images.
But despite being informed by police, social services did nothing for two weeks, leaving the little girl where she was.
The child also told her real father and a social worker that she had been ‘strangled’ by another child at the foster home, but still she was returned to the house.
Social worker Sherilyn Pritchard told the hearing, chaired by Annette Young, that there was ‘not enough information to justify immediate removal’ of the girl when the allegations arose.
‘I think we have to bear in mind that she may have been sexually abused in that foster placement’
– Child’s legal guardian
The child’s appointed legal guardian said: ‘I think we have to bear in mind that she may have been sexually abused in that foster placement.’
Chairman of the magistrates Mrs Young criticised Bristol City Council for not following child protection procedures, saying: ‘These matters concern us greatly and we believe should be thoroughly and forensically investigated and reviewed in an independent forum.’
No disciplinary action has been taken against anyone from social services following the council’s internal review, but an independent review has not yet been published.
High Court judge Mr Justice Baker said the authority’s bid for a gagging order was ‘unjustified’, adding: ‘It is in the public interest for these matters to be published.’
The girl is now in a new foster home. But speaking at the time of the court hearing, her natural father said: ‘I am livid.
‘They said she wasn’t safe at home but they put her where someone had been downloading child abuse images.’
He added: ‘There is a danger that those who practise in the family justice system fail to give proper consideration to the Article 10 rights of the media. This must now cease.’
Robert Oxley, Campaign Manager of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘This was a shameful attempt to suppress the media from reporting council bungling.
‘It’s a disgrace that Bristol City Council have spent taxpayers’ money trying to hide its involvement in a very serious and disturbing case.
‘Questions must be asked not only of those responsible for the mistakes in the original fostering case but also of whoever authorised the use of taxpayers’ money for the legal action to cover it up.’
———————
John Sweeney, an investigative reporter and presenter on the BBC’s Real Story, describes reporting on the family courts as being as difficult as reporting from Zimbabwe. Of the seven child abuse cases he has covered in the criminalcourtsover the past few years, all have ended in the quashing of convictions. Some of the defendants — Angela Cannings and Sally Clark — have become household names. But of the five cases he has covered in the family courts,all have ended in the parents losing their children for ever. This in itself seems to indicate that when there is a criminal element , the proceedings are consequently public so the parents have a chance to win! The secrecy of the family courts as opposed to the criminal courts allows compliant establishment judges to make the most outrageous decisions depriving parents of their children safe from outside scrutiny or criticism. You will probably never know the names of those parents. Their names must be changed and their faces blocked out, to “protect” the children. It is hard to expose miscarriages of justice when the stories are drained of human content.
Tammy tells her shocking story to the conference:-
“In the best interest of the child” that’s what the professional’s state, but even the professionals and the family courts can be wrong as they were in my case.
Let me explain about my birth family, and myself. I am a young adopted adult; I was taken from my mum nearly 17 years ago on a false allegation, I was seven months old and sitting in my bouncing chair, my mum had gone into the kitchen to make me a night feed. I was happily playing with an activity toy, which I dropped on the floor; I leant forward to reach the toy but the chair followed me arid tipped forward falling on top of me. I sustained a bruise on my cheek. And that’s where my life was changed forever.
My case was heard within the family court in the years 1989 which lasted all the way to 1992. I was placed with a set of foster carers whom I stayed with for 13 months.
Then one-day social services accused the foster carers of suffering from depression and removed me from their care! I was then placed with three lots of emergency foster carers before being placed with my pre adopters, who then became my parents.
While this was happening to me my mum gave birth to my brother Cameron. One minute after his birth social services (a male) walked into the labour suite and tried to hand a place and safety order in writing to my mum who was laid on the bed with no clothes on and she had not even delivered the placenta. Medical staff asked the social worker to leave on three occasions eventually the social worker left the labour suite, leaving my mum very distressed and losing all her dignity.
My mum and Cameron went home to my grandparents where they resided until the 28th of December 1990. My mum then went to the family court as social services were trying for an interim care order to remove my brother from her care. My mum fought and won full parental rights of Cameron and no further action was taken.
All my mum wanted was to fight for me, she attended many family courts, which were held in secret and she was not allowed to talk about our case or me to anyone.
Time passed and Cameron reached the age of 21 months old, when the social services actually reached a date for my freeing order, which was in the year of 1992; there were no concerns to Cameron’s welfare. She was an excellent mother to him.
The judge who heard my case made his decision on the basis that social services had delayed my case for over two and a half years. On reading his decision to my mum (he stated) “Miss Coulter if I return your daughter home to you, you will be a stranger to her” and on that decision I was freed for adoption and my whole future was completely changed.
Finding out that you are adopted is one of the worst feelings in the world because you feel that all your identity you have known of yourself is a lie; for example your whole childhood and personality.
I found out through photos that my brother was still with my mum and is one and a half years younger than me. This was very upsetting and left me wondering why my mum wanted my brother and not me.
Left with these unanswered questions and feeling very confused; like I did not belong anywhere I wanted to find the truth, and the answers to my questions, the only person who could answer them was my mum.
My decision to find my birth family was not supported in the way in which I would have liked from my adoptive parents. I went about looking for my mum by first of all ringing support after adoption that told me I must wait until I am 18 years of age and would not offer me any help or advice. Which left me more confused and very upset?
In January this year on a Thursday night I received a phone call from my best friend. She told me to go over to her house, as it was very important. I had no idea of what I was to be told. Her laptop was placed on her bed and she told me to read the posting. I was ecstatic as I read the information, which confirmed that my mum was looking for me as much as I was looking for her.
My friend who knew as much as I did about my adoption found the posting when secretly putting my name on GENES REUNITED. I found myself emailing her my mobile number as I knew the same information which was written in her posting; which included information that nobody would have known about me.
I waited three and a half hours for the phone call which would change my whole life, and answer all the unanswered questions which had been tormenting me since the age of about 11 when I moved to Comprehensive School where I met many other adopted and fostered children.
Waiting for the phone call was the most exciting and precious time of my life, the hours seemed like weeks. In the next breath I was actually talking to my mum on the phone, we spoke for an hour about everything that we could. We put the phone down and later that evening I rang my mum back and told her I know it was short notice but could we please meet the following morning and she agreed to.
Our meeting was very emotional for the both of us, neither of us spoke we just put our arms around each other and cried together, we held each other very tight and I cant explain how happy I was feeling.
After many secret meetings I decided to tell my adoptive parents about my news, I did not tell them for about two months because I knew what their reaction would be. When I told my mum, as my dad was at work she cried and turned her back on me making me feel very isolated as if I had done something wrong. They never did understand why it was important that I find my birth family nor did they support me at the emotional time. I was keeping in contact via the Internet with my birth family as my mobile phone was confiscated; however they also stopped me from using the Internet to stop any contact, which I was having with my birth family. During this time I was studying for my AS levels which I failed due to all the stress and confusion.
The way my adoptive parents were towards my other life caused a huge conflict in the house making life unbearable at home and at school. I was eventually turned away from my home due to arguments other than my birth parents; this is when I phoned my birth mum, as I had nowhere else to turn. It was too late when I was asked to return to the house I did not want to be treated like a child nor did I want to my feelings to be ignored any longer, so I decided to move in with my birth family.
This brings me to why I am here today, I was a child who was wrongfully removed from the care of my mother and most of all I have had the rights taken away from me to have enjoyed the right to a family life with my natural family.
I would like to say I have had a good upbringing by my adoptive parents and I love them very much, however the complication of my adoption also ruined my relationship with my adoptive parents, as I only wanted to find the truth about my life.
I am publicly speaking today on behalf of children and parents who have also been through the secrecy of family courts and the injustices that have taken place and do still take place and the devastation of what one decision that determines the future of a child can cause to a whole family.
Since I have moved in with my birth family I see the relationship between my mother, brother and sister and cannot help feeling like I have missed out no matter how much I fit in now. We have all bonded very well, I now feel as if I fit in somewhere and feel I can be myself as I have found out who I really am and that my mum never did anything wrong. Over the years Yvonne has been fighting to prove her innocence and that an injustice has taken place. I am very angry and also upset that my mum was treated like a criminal and punished for life on something that she never did, and she had the right to a family life taken away.
Let me explain to you how I am feeling:
- Confused
- Hurt
- Stripped of my identity
- I missed out on a relationship with my brothers and sisters, mum and dad and other close relations
- Exhausted through lies
- I know I am not the only person to have gone through the hell of secrecy in family courts and hope to have expressed the way in which they will feel and are feeling at my age.
Changes that I would like to see happen.
1) For medical evidence used in the courts to not be based on probabilities when determining a child’s future, it must be fact.
2) To stop social services making medical diagnoses when not qualified to do so.
3) For social services when conducting assessments to be thorough and not based on self-opinions but facts.
4) For an independent body who is impartial to social services to be brought in when social services are assessing a family and to check they are following all guide lines of social work.
5) More support for families with whatever reason; a low IQ, a mother whom has depression, a parent that has suffered domestic violence and also a parent whom has a disability. More outside agencies should be involved to help put support packages in place to help families stay together and have the right to a family life.
6) Slow integration of a child back with its natural family should be paramount and decisions to take away the child should be the last resort. For example my mum was told she would be a stranger to me if I were returned home to her however my foster parents and my adoptive parents were also strangers.
7) The most important factor of us all being here today is about the secrecy surrounding the family courts and why they should be opened, you have all listened to my story and many of you would have read similar stories to mine in the media. I am of age where I can talk about the detrimental effects that the secrecy of the family courts has caused to me.
Many of the children who have been taken in the past and are still being taken do not have a voice.
The opening of the family courts would make it a fairer, non judgmental and a more impartial system which would help children that are left in the hands of abuser’s and would also work by stopping children from being wrongfully removed and injustices from taking place.
So please when considering the opening of the family courts take into account that we are all human and we have feelings and the way in which the courts have been working up to this day has been inhumane in many cases and human rights have been exploited.
The detrimental emotional effects and the separation, has on children torn apart from their birth families, lasts a life time.
Tammy
Dear Ian,
I hope you are well.
I just thought I’d let you know the outcome… it was successful on Friday. A suspended residence was awarded after much pressure from me. Would you believe it, Cafcass caved in!
At first, ex-husband wanted full residence, then shared care, then suspended residence with every weekend, then finally he succumbed to my demands, which were 9.5 days/month. I suggested that non-compliance would mean another hearing, which nobody wanted. In fact, his own barrister was trying to put him off by suggesting that I would want another hearing if there was non-compliance. Cafcass and his barrister late-afternoon on Friday started to work with me, and Mrs Humphrys (the despicable Cafcass sol. ) was surprisingly courteous and kind, very understanding and recommended, along with Cain (the guardian) would you believe it, that my decisions are the best ones to go with!
So, all in all Ian, it was a very successful day for the children and me.
I couldn’t have done it without you…thank you very much. I even quoted your Artile 12 case law, which had an effect. I hope you don’t mind that I will be recommending you on my forthcoming site, i.e. familiesneedmothers.com. My brother sends his heartfelt thanks to you as well, as do the rest of my family.
Thank you again and God’s blessings to you.
I hope we can stay in touch.
Take care,
Tina Dulai
TYPICAL CASE SCENARIOS
These can be separated into the following 9 most frequently occurring categories …
Scenario 1:-
Mothers with “learning difficulties” (meaning a lowish IQ) and/or some physical disability such as being lame or blind, but every capability of looking after a baby especially when aided by a very able and supportive partner.-
http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/p4p/stolen_children_ss.htm
Usually All the children are removed on the grounds that their future development might be prejudiced by their mother’s “problem” and worse still any babies born in future by such mothers are taken away at birth and put out for adoption no matter how hard desperate mothers plead in court to keep their babies.In fact research has shown that over 50% of parents with learning difficulties have their children snatched by social services!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4752887.stm
In one case involving a blind mother and her sighted partner the social worker concerned was convicted of perjury and conspiring to pervert the course of justice when caught out lying in her report;however she still won the adoption case and the mother lost her two little girls for ever. The social worker had to resign and was let off with a suspended prison sentence……. http://www.fathercare.org/cafcass05.htm
Scenario 2:- Mothers who have some sort of record or conviction for violence towards other adults ( but not young children) or a partner with a similar record or conviction, even if these events happened many years ago.A parent who was abused whilst in the “care” of social services and now considered too “emotionally damaged “to keep a baby .A complaint about a noisy argument between parents, or a social worker remembering a disagreement with a parent a long time ago leads to renewed SS involvement……
Decision:- Children are removed and put in care and worse still any newborn baby that arrives is swiftly taken away for adoption by strangers.
Scenario 3:- Mothers with a difficult child with behaviour problems, or with stepfathers who resent the children , or simply mothers who cannot afford to properly feed and clothe their children due to some sudden glitch or delay in the benefits system or non payment of maintenence take the rashest step of all .They ask for help and advice from the social services.!!! Alas “problems” or “poverty” are swiftly equated with “neglect”. Hundreds of mothers up and down the country have made that same fatal error and suffered the same dire consequences…. 440 children were removed over a 4 year period simply because the parents had “a low income” and no other reason !!
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/adoption/adoptionreforms/CLAbulletin2003-04final1.pdf (see page 12)
Lose your children for being ‘Too Poor’
By James Chapman – Political Correspondent
Daily Mail 22 August 2005
| More than 75% of care leavers have no academic qualifications of any kind |
| More than 50% of young people leaving care after 16 years are unemployed |
| 17% of young women leaving care are pregnant or already mothers |
| 10% of 16-17 year old claimants of DSS severe hardship payments have been in care |
| 23% of adult prisoners and 38% of young prisoners have been in care |
| 30% of young single homeless people have been in care |
Above source: The Children Leaving Care Bill [HL] Bill 134 1999-2000 PDF Document
Decision:- More often than not children are removed and the oldest are put in care and the youngest are taken for adoption. Any newborn babies are usually seized for adoption by strangers and lost for ever to mothers whose only crime was to ask for help and advice from Social Services.
Scenario 4:- Mothers who are extra careful and who take their children to hospital for minor ailments or injuries “once too often” attract the attention of social services who call in their “old allies” Professors Meadows and Southall who can be relied upon to diagnose “munchausen syndrome” claiming that the mothers have injured the children themselves to gain attention.
Decision:- Thousands of children have been taken to be put into care and thousands of babies have been given for adoption as a result of this now discredited theory invented by now discredited men. The Minister for children admits that tens of thousands may have been wrongly adopted but claims it is too late to do anything about it now….
Scenario 5:- Once again careful mothers who take children to hospital for minor injuries that turn out to be serious on closer inspection or even fatal after admission.
Decision:- Social services are alerted and they in turn call in their old friends the Professor/detective Meadows and of course Professor Southall who decided that Sally Clark’s husband had murdered her children on the basis of having watched a television programme without ever having examined husband or children !! Meadows had accused the PREGNANT wife Sally who was imprisoned for murder and her newborn baby taken for adoption. This took place not in a secret family court but in a criminal court so there was widespread publicity.She was later released when it was found that Meadow’s theories and statistics had no scientific basis whatever. She and her husband were both exonerated too late to recover the baby that had been adopted.The family courts usually attribute even a single unexplained injury to negligence or worse by the parents when it could just as easily have been caused at school or by a family friend or neighbours or simply by accident, with the sad consequence that many children are wrongly deprived of their parents and given out for adoption and the parents themselves are often wrongly imprisoned by criminal courts and only released when it is too late to recover their children from “forced adoption”
Scenario 6:- Social services acting on information from the police or sometimes just from anonymous tip-offs decide that certain children with parents who violently abuse or batter each other or even shouting,and arguing parents who are not actually violent at all are suffering from “emotional abuse”. This is loosely defined as a situation where parents do not bond with their children, and who show them no love, but who are either physically violent or who at least shout and criticise each other and their offspring.
Decision:- An allegation of “emotional abuse” or worse still “a risk that children might suffer emotional harm in the future” is very difficult for parents to defend against the “expert psychiatrists” called by the social services. The result is usually that COMPLIANT ESTABLISHMENT JUDGES authorise that the children are put in care and any new babies born to the mother in question are removed and given for adoption by strangers.This even happens years after a mother has left her abusive partner and established a new relationship with a new non- abusive partner.As a result battered women are afraid to report their plight as if they do they run a very strong risk that they will lose their children! It is no defence to point out that the Royal Family and most of the Aristocratic families in Britain should lose their children on the basis of”emotional neglect” or failure to “bond” but they of course do not rely on legal aid but can afford top barristers to represent them, and social services tend to avoid anyone with resources like that !
|
Scenario 7:- Grandparents are sometimes left to look after the children when the parents die or are incapacitated due to accident, illness, drug or alcohol addiction, or a prison sentence. Often there is rancour within the remaining family structure, and social services are called in either for this reason or because social workers in the case of addicted or criminal parents feel that the grandparents must be tarred with the same brush and that in their 60’s they are too elderly and old fashioned to look after young children.
Decision:- As usual the legal aid lawyers agree with social services that the children are better off in care and if young enough should be adopted by younger and more respectable strangers. In one well known case a grandson was taken to male gay fosterparents on the orders and recommendation of two married lady social workers who were accorded maximum respect by a Court that followed their suggestions to the letter. Shortly after this these very same ladies who had said the grandparents were not suitable as carers for their grandson, deserted their own husbands and children and proudly set up home together as a lesbian couple. Despite this poor example of family responsibility their advice remained followed and the grandparents lost contact with their grandson for ever.
Please see the following article from The Mail on Sunday, Nov 18 2001 “You’ll never see your children again!”
Scenario 8 :-
THE WORST CRIME OF ALL !!
A MOTHER with no criminal record,and no problem with drugs or alcohol proudly gives birth to her new baby. (very often her first baby !)
That same day (or in some cases a month or two later) two or more social workers ,usually accompanied by uniformed police arrive and snatch the baby. Explanations they tell the distraught mother will be given later in court!
When the SS apply to the Court for an interim care order it will be revealed that though the mother is blameless,nevertheless social services have grave suspicions that the father might have a violent past! No matter that he has no criminal record, has never been convicted of violence and usually never has even been charged with any crime! No problems with alcohol or drugs just a distrust of the social workers who kidnapped his child.Such hostility must, they say surely indicate a personality disorder and the need for anger management courses!On top of all this he was perhaps accused of violence in a previous custody or divorce case (like Sir Paul McCartney) or was even suspected of complicity in the death of a previous baby or child but never accused in open court.
DECISION:-
In vain will the mother plead that she has done nothing wrong.In vain will she plead that she knew nothing of this aspect of her partner’s/husband’s past but that he is so gentle and kind with her she cannot believe the unproved accusations against him.
This however is quite enough for the wretched judge’s decision! You may be innocent he says but the fact that you blindly support your partner/husband (as any married mother swore to do on her wedding day) is enough to show that you will never work properly with thr “professionals” and cannot be trusted with your baby.SUCH JUDGES COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND SHOULD BE THROWN INTO PRISON like the Nazi judges who were judged in their turn at Nuremburg!
The baby is then given for adoption to strangers and it will probably wonder for the rest of its life why its mother abandoned her child……
These cases are more common than you might think and I am personally helping in one case that has now gone to Strasbourg.The European Court recently condemned the UK practice of taking newborn babies at birth as “draconian” and fined the UK a large sum!
I am myself appearing as a Mckenzie friend in a second similar case to advise the parents in court.
In my opinion Social Workers who take babies or toddlers in circumstances similar to those are committing crimes against humanity and deserve punishment with a term in prison.One day not too far away I hope and believe that retribution will finally catch up with these heartless criminals!!
For the present however EVERY COMPLETELY INNOCENT MOTHER IN THE UK IS AT RISK OF HAVING THEIR NEWBORN BABY SNATCHED AT BIRTH BY SOCIAL SERVICES !!!!
It is enough for some dark secret accusation in the father’s past to be unearthed by overzealous social workers ! The mother’s sin? Choosing the wrong man to father her child even if she knew nothing of disputed incidents in his long distant past !
Supreme Court dismisses local authoritys appeal in J (Children)
The real possibility that the parent caring for the child has harmed a child in the past is not by itself sufficient, says Lady Hale The Supreme Court has dismissed the local authority’s appeal in In the Matter of J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the local authority’s appeal. The main judgment is given by Lady Hale, with whom all the justices agree. Lord Wilson expresses disagreement on one point, which Lord Sumption shares. Lord Reed gives an additional judgment, with which Lord Clarke and Lord Carnwath agree. Lord Hope agrees with Lady Hale and Lord Reed.
The issue in this case was whether a child can be regarded as ‘likely to suffer’ harm for the purposes of s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 if another child has been harmed in the past and there is a possibility that the parent now caring for him or her was responsible for the harm to the other child.
The local authority in this case brought care proceedings in respect of three children who are cared for by DJ and JJ. The two oldest are the children of DJ and his former partner, and have always lived with DJ. The youngest child is JJ’s daughter, her third child with her former partner, SW. The local authority submitted that the three children were likely to suffer significant harm because JJ’s first child with SW, T-J, had died of non-accidental injuries in 2004. In earlier care proceedings relating to JJ and SW’s second child, who was subsequently adopted, a judge had found that either JJ or SW had caused the injuries to T-J and the other had at the very least colluded to hide the truth. In the present proceedings the local authority sought to rely solely on the finding that JJ was a possible perpetrator of the injuries to T-J. It submitted that this was a finding of fact sufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the s 31(2) threshold in respect of the three children now cared for by JJ and DJ.
The High Court held on a preliminary issue that likelihood of significant harm can only be established by reference to past facts that are proved on the balance of probabilities. Mere possibility was insufficient. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the local authority but granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Lady Hale, giving the ,lead judgment, said that it is a serious matter for the state compulsorily to remove a child from his family of birth. The section 31(2) threshold is an important measure to protect a family from unwarranted intrusion while at the same time protecting children from harm [1] [75]. The wording of Section 31(2) has been the subject of six appeals to the House of Lords and Supreme Court. Those cases have consistently held that a prediction of future harm has to be founded on proven facts: suspicions or possibilities are not enough. Such facts have to be proved on the simple balance of probabilities [36]. This approach is supported by the legislative history of section 31(2) [45-46] [96]. It would be odd if the first limb (actual harm) had to be proved to the court’s satisfaction but the basis of predicting future harm did not [47].
Care cases in which the only matter upon which the authority can rely is the possibility that the parent has harmed another child in the past are very rare. Usually there will be many readily provable facts upon which an authority can rely [5]. Even in cases where the perpetrator of injuries could not be identified there may be a multitude of established facts from which a likelihood that this parent will harm a child in the future could be shown. However, the real possibility that the parent caring for the child has harmed a child in the past is not by itself sufficient [54]. In this case there were many potentially relevant facts found in the earlier proceedings against JJ which might have been relevant to an assessment of whether JJ would harm children in the future, such as the collusion with SW which prevented the court from identifying the perpetrator, the failure to protect T-J, and the deliberate failure to keep T-J away from health professionals [56]. Other relevant matters for the assessment would have been consideration of the household circumstances at the time of T-J’s death and whether JJ’s new relationship with DJ looking after much older children was different [53]. As the local authority had chosen not to rely on these facts, however, it would not be fair to the whole family to allow these proceedings to go on. JJ has been looking after these three children and a new baby for some time without (so far as the court is aware) giving cause for concern and, should the local authority wish to make a case that any of these children is likely to suffer significant harm in the future, it will be open to it to bring new proceedings [57].
Lord Wilson, while agreeing with Lady Hale for the most part and in the disposal of the appeal, identified an issue on which he differed from the majority. In his view, since the consignment of a person to a pool of possible perpetrators of injuries to one child could not constitute a factual foundation for a prediction of likely significant harm to another child in his or her care, then as a matter of logic, it could not become part of the requisite foundation in combination with other facts and circumstances [80]. Lord Sumption agreed [92
Scenario 9:- Cruel parents, step-parents, foster parents, or carers in children’s homes beat, burn, or sexually abuse the children in their charge. Usually these victims are never believed if they complain and are very often left with broken bones extensive bruises and burns,and other serious physical damage.If concerned neighbours or relatives persist in complaining a social worker is eventually instructed to visit and inspect.
Decision:- An inexperienced social worker is usually given the unpleasant task of visiting what is usually a very sordid and smelly dwelling to report on the welfare of the children. When this person is met by aggressive and threatening parents or carers who say that the children are “out” or ill, or asleep, and not to be disturbed the social worker beats a hasty retreat and promises to call again. Due however to “pressure of work “this promise is rarely kept and it is only the tragic death of a child that can ever bring these situations out into the light of day. There is little question that if social services applied to the family Courts for care orders in such cases the parents would never bother to go to court let alone oppose the orders.
Social services plead shortage of staff and financial resources as excuses for overlooking torture of children(even after 60 visitsto baby P ).In other European countries they take children from parents only if they have been severely phsically abused but in Britain we waste most of out valuable resources fighting cruel cases in secret courts to remove children and even new born babies at “risk of emotional harm” and similar lesser reasons.The parents of baby P WOULD NEVER HAVE GONE TO COURT to fight for his return if he had been taken earlier as parents that violently physically abuse their children avoid courts like the plague !
Physical torture KILLS KILLS KILLS !!! Emotional abuse does NOT Poor school attendance does NOT A cluttered house does NOT Witnessing domestic violence does NOT Hostility to the “professionals” does NOT A parent with learning problems does NOT Where therefore should the “SS” priorities lie? I’m only asking !! I would have thought myself it was MORE IMPORTANT to concentrate on preventing babies being tortured rather than the more common rush to remove babies AT BIRTH from mothers whom some highly paid psychobabble merchants have decided may at some future date emotionally harm their babies !Crystal ball gazing ?
Luton News on Sunday October 1 2006 – Councils face abuse trial – Three children will begin a unique High Court fight next week for compensation from two local authorities they allege left them exposed to physical and sexual abuse by their families for years. Read article…
|
“The sheer scale of the injustice goes further than anyone can im
|
Aberdeenshire Social ServicesSocial workers repeatedly warned of the dangers
Haringey Social ServicesA SOCIAL worker who failed to halt the abuse and murder
Birmingham Social ServicesAgencies slammed over Toni-Ann murder
Investigation has been launched into the social services
Jasmine Galyer aged 3
Forced Adoption Case Scenarios – Conclusions
Social services knew of child in danger
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story
It follows alas that only those parents and carers in categories 1 to 8 above try in court to keep their children and above all their babies.They are however always destined to lose due to the inertia of legal aid lawyers and partiality of judges who make very sure that in cases invoving care orders and adoption the social services always always win ! The parents and especially the mothers always always lose ! Parents cannot complain publicly about any injustice they feel they may have suffered in the family courts as they and any journalist revealing the slightest detail of those proceedings risk prison for contempt of court.
‘Safe Houses’ for children running away from the abuse of the care system
Their little voices will be heard, and the Nation will know the truth.
Government figures show that some 100,000 children per year are running away from the abuse of parents and the care system to live on the streets. Some of them are as young as five. All hostels in this country are for children aged 16-18. There is not one Safe House for children under the age of 16 in England, Scotland or Wales.
It is the intention of the charity ‘Children Screaming to be Heard – The Silent Witnesses’ www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com to raise the funds necessary for the first Safe House to be put in place in Essex, going on to raise funding for Safe Houses to be set up throughout the country. After speaking with many police officers, who have all agreed, Safe Houses would be the best idea for the 21st century, as many children are picked up from the streets and they can be sat for up to nine hours in a police station, only to be collected by the social services to be sent back to their abusers, only for the child to run away again.
Once the Safe Houses are in place, we hope to put a stop to the street children being picked up, trafficked, sold, prostituted, sold to paedophile rings and murdered.
A Safe House will have a 24/7 free-phone line for children to call, with drivers ready 24/7 to pick up the children and take them to the safety of a Safe House. All the Safe Houses will be registered with OFSTED, with all their personnel subject to police checks. Safe Houses will also be the voice for abused children whom governments, social services, CAFCASS lawyers and the whole child protection system, purporting to be in a “child’s best interests”, are simply not listening to the children – this is why the charity calls children “the silent witnesses”.
The Safe Houses will negotiate to work with governments, schools, social services and police so that the necessary changes are introduced enabling children’s human rights to be upheld and their wishes respected. The charity will employ adults from the care system who were abused who will be trained to speak in schools across the country and inform all children of an age to know about the Safe Houses and about Children’s Rights under the law and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Every child who enters a Safe House will find security, food, affection and big hugs. They will be listened to and their voices will be heard outside. We will protect each child for up to 3 weeks, following which every child returned to the system will have a McKenzie friend or advocate. This will give the child a feeling of security, knowing they have someone to turn to for support and to whom they can report what happens to them. The Safe Houses will also continue to monitor all children leaving their care.
The Safe Houses will all have access to medical GPs, in-house teachers for education and if it is the wish of the child to see members of their families, contact may be arranged within the Safe Houses. The charity will also have a legal team to represent the children, with all children of an age being told of their rights under the Gillick Competence Rule.
The Nation needs to know the truth about what is happening to our children in the care system, and via the Safe Houses for the abused children the Nation will learn of the abuse of children in a system claiming to be acting in a “child’s best interests”, yet woefully failing them. Children in the care system are not allowed access to telephones or computers and they are completely cut off from their families and friends. Should a child and family be allowed contact, this normally takes place in a tiny room, with a supervisor writing everything down, following which allegations may be made against families and contact stopped. Yet contact with parents, grandparents and other family members is in almost all cases vital to a child’s happiness, to feelings of having ‘roots’ in the society and to enable their successful development into an adult. Worst of all, children in the care system have no way of reporting abuse, and should they do so they are usually ignored. For this reason, if for none other we must bring change if we can truly claim to be acting in the best interests of our children.
Recent research has found that many parents and families throughout the country are being charged from £50 per hour for contact in a centre to see a child in care. Many parents cannot afford to pay and this is another form of a family break up in a child’s “best interest”.
The business plan for the children’s Safe Houses has been completed and the charity is now seeking funding to implement the project.
For donations please make cheques payable to “children screaming to be heard” and send to
Arthur Millman
Goldwyn’s Accountants
90/92 Baxter Avenue
Southend-on-Sea
Essex
SS2 6HZ
Thank you
Maggie Tuttle
Founder
Children Screaming to be Heard – the silent witnesses
Secret Family Courts – Contradictions
This secrecy is supposed to protect the children from being stigmatised when in fact it exists to prevent the press and public from knowing about the horrifying injustices that take place in these family courts. The proof of this is that every month on a website www.ukkids.info and in a magazine called “adoption uk” social services all over the country advertise hundreds of chidren waiting for adoption who are subject to care orders ! Incredibly they publish huge colour photographs of these children with first names, birth dates, details of their characters, and financial rewards for those who agree to adopt !! Some mothers are bitterly upset to see their children advertised in this fashion. Any person familiar with the family can swiftly identify the children concerned so the only secrecy remaining protects not the children but the judges and social workers !!!
So far,more than 200 MPs think the same !!
House of Commons
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29194&SESSION=875
The only chance of publicity is if criminal charges have been brought as criminal courts are open to press and public. In this way the scandalous “munchausen syndrome” was eventually exposed for the rubbish that it is by the public freeing of several mothers (on appeal) who had been jailed by courts that had been “taken in” by this pernicious theory.
Any resistance to the plans of social services is exposed as a serious personality disorder, and once children are in care despite opposition in court by the mother, contact with her children is kept to a minimum (telephone calls are usually forbidden). WORST OF ALL IF ANY WOMAN WITH CHILDREN IN CARE DARES TO HAVE A NEW BABY IT IS USUALLY RUTHLESSLY REMOVED AT BIRTH AND GIVEN TO STRANGERS FOR ADOPTION.In this way some women are reduced to the level of babymaking machines working to swell the adoption figures of the local Council. Changes in circumstances are rarely taken into account.There are no second chances!! The new baby is abruptly deprived of it’s mother’s milk and indeed all contact with mother, brothers, sisters, and grandparents for the rest of it’s life unless at 18 years old it is lucky enough to overcome all obstacles and be reunited with it’s real family.
PROBLEMS AND REMEDIES.
1:- Problem:- Judges who “play it safe” by going along with social service requests to allow thousands of children to be adopted against the will of parents who have never harmed them.
Remedy:-Allow parents in family courts to opt for decision by jury as few juries would agree to “forced adoptions” unless parents were proved to have been physically abusive.
2:-Problem:-Children taken from parents because they are “at risk” or have suffered “emotional abuse”.Parents cannot defend themselves against such non specific accusations.Contact betwen children in care and parents is usually left to the discretion of social services and is often used as a weapon to enforce obedient cooperation.Phone contact is usually forbidden
Remedy: Social Services should only be allowed to take children who have actually suffered significant physical damage through the fault of their parents (established by a criminal conviction)such as broken bones cigarette burns ,sexual abuse,malnutrition, drug or alcohol addiction.Contact arrangements should be specified in court for children in care, and phone contact should always be allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances .
3:-Problem:- Newborn babies are taken from mothers because they have already had children taken into care and they are thus prevented from making a fresh start in life.
Remedy:As 2 above. Unless a mother has harmed her baby physically it should never be removed at birth and deprived of breast feeding.
4:-Problem:-Family Courts are secret and parents and the press are forbidden to publish names and details of injustices even at the request of the parents concerned.Hearsay evidence that cannot be questioned properly and the absence of the children themselves from the court make it difficult for parents to present their cases effectively.
Remedy:-Family courts should be open to press and public but names should not be revealed. Nevertheless,parents should be allowed to waive their anonymity (in the same way as victims in rape cases) and go to the press openly if they feel their children have been unjustly taken from them.Hearsay evidence should NEVER be admitted in the Family courts,and children should come to give evidence in court if the parents so request
Local authorities should not be allowed to anticipate the decisions of the courts by “advertising” in magazines and on the internet , photos and descriptions of children who are still under interim or full care orders but who have not yet been freed for adoption.
WHO PROFITS FROM THE ADOPTION RACKET?
Local Authorities(stars,beacon status, and financial rewards under public service agreements .Kent for example got £21million)
Very highly paid “professionals” who call themselves “parenting assessors”,”legal aid lawyers” (a case in the family courts costs an average of £70,000,)crackpot psychiatrists who claim they can “foretell” the future behaviour of parents towards their children and tame medical experts who somehow always side with social services against the parents.
Foster parents(up to £400per week per child plus allowances for Xmas and holidays)Special schools charging up to £7000 per week per child(as shown on tv channel 4, Adoption and fostering agencies charging up to £18,000 per placement.
Some statistics from an article in the Evening Standard make for some startling and horrifying reading, it seems that not all are suffering in the adoption & fostering system in the UK.
One adoption agency, Foster Care Associates in 2003 showed the following:
- £56 Million Annual Turnover
- 8 Directors paid themselves £2.2 Million in fees
- The same Director’s also paid themselves a staggering average of £285,000 each in pre tax profits.
Judges safely immune from any criticism that might adversely affect their careers in the secret family courts ( eventual promotion is likely as long as they side with social services).
Middle aged professional types whose careers have taken priority over childbearing (until too late) seize the opportunity with the help of social services to take free of charge the (preferably white european) babies and young children of those in society who for one reason or another are too weak to defend themselves effectively.
Lastly of course the social workers themselves whose promotion and career prospects depend on achieving adoption targets and working to perpetuate the system.
The merciless forces of the State combine to organise and support support a system of “forced adoption” that the weaker elements of society are helpless to resist.Huge sums of money are at stake in this pernicious industry where the commodity is “children”
I believe that future generations will look back in horror at the activities of our social services in much the same way that we now regard the appalling treatment of poor children working long hours down coalmines and up chimneys in Victorian England. At least however even in those days the unfortunate children were usually left with their own families…..
Millionaire Baby Brokers
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050930/ai_n15646428
Firms cash in on shortage of foster homes Published: Sunday, 2 October, 2005,
LONDON: Private agencies are making millions of pounds out of a critical shortage of foster homes for children. Firms are charging councils on average £800 per child per week, an EVENING STANDARD investigation revealed.
This amounts to £41,600 a year to find suitable homes for the most vulnerable children in society.
One head of social services said: “It is cheaper to send the children to Eton.”
London councils are so desperate to hold on to their foster parents that two are offering them free loft conversions – worth up to £30,000 – so they can take in more children. Britain’s largest independent agency Foster Care Associates had a £56mn turnover in 2003, the last year for which accounts are available.
Its eight directors – seven of them social workers who set up the company 10 years ago – paid themselves total fees of more than £2.2mn as well as sharing pre-tax profits of almost £900,000.
The directors awarded themselves on average £285,000 each – about 10 times the annual salary of a social worker.
There is an estimated shortage of 10,000 foster carers across the UK. This has driven up the prices charged by the 150 or so independent agencies.
It costs councils between £300 and £400 a week to place children with their own approved foster carers but they cannot meet the demand and have to turn to outside agencies. More difficult children can cost as much as £1,500 per week to place in foster homes.
The problem is especially acute in London, where out of 11,500 fostered children up to one-third are found homes through independent agencies. Many of them are ‘dumped’ in outlying towns around the capital. A total of 60,000 children are fostered nationally.
A spokesman at the department for education said: “We know there are too many children being placed outside of authorities. We commissioned a report last year looking at how we can reduce that number.”
Out of the 11,500 fostered children in London, half of them are teenagers, about 3,000 aged eight to 12 and 2,500 aged under eight.
Children are typically being sent from London boroughs to Kent, miles from their schools and friends. Some 330 problem children from London are being fostered in the Margate area.
This has prompted the Kent child protection committee to compile a report, sent to ministers, warning the town is now at a ‘tipping point’ and branding the situation ‘explosive’.
Paul Fallon, director of social services at Barnet council and spokesman for all London’s social services directors, said: “Every penny we spend on one child is a penny we can’t spend on another child. If I place a child with Barnet it is £400. But it costs me about double that to place a child in an independent placement.
“It is a sellers’ market and that will impact on prices. We are stuck. It is cheaper to send children to Eton.”
He estimated that in Barnet about 30 to 40 children – about 10% of the number needing foster care – are unaccompanied child refugees. They have helped to swell numbers of children needing placements, putting added pressure on social services.
A spokeswoman for Richmond council, where private places at £900 cost three times as much as council places, said: “In emergencies we will negotiate with another borough for a temporary foster place, but that’s very rare.”
The crisis has prompted Barnet council and Hammersmith and Fulham to offer grants of up to £30,000 to foster parents to build loft conversions to house more children. A spokeswoman for Hammersmith and Fulham said the outlay would pay itself back within one to two years even if it creates just one extra fostering place.
Defenders of private agencies point out councils often do not factor hidden staffing costs – such as administration and on-call social workers – into their weekly fees. Private agencies also point out they are often called upon to find placements for the most difficult children. They point out they also provide round-the-clock social worker support as well as educational support and therapy. Not all agencies are profit-making with fostering services carried out by charities such as Barnardo’s and NCH.
Marcelle Ibbetson, service development manager at NCH, which also typically charges £800 a week, said: “We don’t think local authorities have properly costed the real cost of foster care. Their behind the scenes costs are hidden. What we provide is private placements at the specialist end of the market.”
None of the directors of Foster Care Associates was available for comment. But in an interview last year Sally Melbourne, FCA’s director for the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire region, said: “The majority of the fee we charge local authorities goes to the carer and on the welfare of the child. We are a business but we make very little profit, last year we made 5% profit.”
A spokesman for the company added: “The company specialises in children that are difficult to place. That is not necessarily behaviourally difficult children but it could be kids with five siblings that need to be kept together or from the ethnic minorities that needs to be placed in their own community. We offer a complete support structure including therapy and education, which is why the costing may look more expensive.” – LONDON – EVENING STANDARD.
FREE LEGAL ADVICE: ian@monaco.mc
or phone me on 0033626875684
IF you ring me from a fixed phone (not a mobile) and you give me the number I will ring you straight back at my expense ! If you have no phone at home any public phone box will do.
Forced Adoption 