butlincat's blog - a blog...a seeker of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...

butlincat's blog ..a seeker of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...

“As long as justice is postponed we always stand on the verge of these darker nights of social disruption”...so said Martin Luther King Jr. in a speech on March 14, 1968, just three weeks before he was assassinated.

...hello + welcome!....FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use.

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License..... For more information please visit:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

Targeted? victimised?...been dealt particularly "rough justice"? meet some who have, and still are! VICTIMS OF THE STATE https://butlincat.com/

This blog is for regular updates + info connected to the ILLUMINATI, 911, 7/7, recent UFO sightings, CHEMTRAILS, MORGELLONS [98% OF WORLDS POPULATION HAS MORGELLONS DISEASE, they claim - see #Morgellons & #SmartDust Infect Individuals to be Tracked via Satellite https://www.youtu.be/RvNDk2t8TGk], MIND CONTROL {MK ULTRA.MANNEQUIN etc.}, ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE, JOHN LEAR, ALEX COLLIER, PROJECT CAMELOT, PROJECT AVALON, MICHAEL TSARION, JORDAN MAXWELL, PRESTON NICHOLS, AL BIELEK, STEWART SWERDELOW, DUNCAN CAMERON, WILLIAM COOPER, PHIL SCHNEIDER, David Wilcock, FRITZ SPRINGMEIER, BILLY MEIER, MAX IGAN, STEW WEBB, "Democracy Now!", Henry Makow, Linda Moulton-Howe, Dan Burisch, Webster Tarpley, Brother Nathanael, Timothy Good, Miles Johnson, Jim Marrs, John Hutchison, Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Dr. John Hall, Edward Snowden, Vladimir Putin, John Lennon, Bob Zimmerman + many more who can only be described as heroes...

Wordpress: VICTIMS OF THE STATE https://butlincat.com/

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/butlincat

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/#!/butlin.cat.9

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap." Galatians 6:7

......Namaste.....John Graham - butlincat

Jai guru deva om जय गुरुदेव ॐ


Tuesday, 4 December 2018

UPDATE 03/12/18 Mark Chambers + co DAY 14 hunger strike against forced adoption at RCJ + Ian Josephs: forced-adoption.com

UPDATE 03/12/18

Mark Chambers + co DAY 14 hunger strike against forced adoption at RCJ 

https://www.gofundme.com/marks-hunger-strike-again…

.........................................................................................................................................................


Mark Chambers hunger strike against forced adoption at #RCJ #London - 21 Nov. 2018

7

 2

Marks hunger strike against forced adoption at RCJ

Update 2




Thanks. Thanks everyone who’s donated recently for Mark and Roland we have now exceeded the 100 target and THANKS to a wonderful lady who wishes to remain anonymous whom donated a whooping £100 , which brings the total to 180, come on mums and dads grandparents Mark and Roland are for All our children and this hunger strike footage will be taken directly to the children’s minister himself in a few weeks! We need exposure like this so we all have a fairer and more balanced hearing in the family courts let’s smash the 200 mark to make mark and Roland’s campaign more comfortable, they are spending a lot of money on phone top ups for data to keep us updated ! Roland s traveling backwards and forward around London n support of mark , he also needs to develop the filming he does with his professional equipment which will be delivered to the children’s minister, to show the lengths and heartbreak parents are going through, all this costs money, let’s at least raise another 20 so it’s a round sum of 200 to pass to these 2 warriors!

source: https://www.gofundme.com/marks-hunger-strike-against-forced-adoption-at-rcj?viewupdates=1&rcid=r01-154282920173-7b1283197af34a3c&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=email&utm_content=cta_button&utm_campaign=upd_n
......................................

Introduction

HELLO!!! LET ME
INTRODUCE

MYSELF


 

Ian Josephs M.A. (Oxon)

http://www.forced-adoption.com

STOP PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME !  ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION !Bring back “free speech” and stop gagging both parents involved with family courts and  also  their children when  in “care;”

PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW THEN SCROLL DOWN TO READ  MY   CONTACT DETAILS !

 What is wrong and what needs to happen …. A brief explanation………..

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

There must be NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME

We must STOP these bullies snatching thousands of children at birth for “risk of emotional abuse”(predictions of future disasters that probably will never happen:) and STOP the family court judges giving away every year thousands of these babies  to strangers for “forced adoption”; We must stop the snatching of kids from  law abiding parents;Why do we have laws if we punish those who keep the law?There should be“.No punishment without crime !”

Contact IAN:-

 Leave me  a contact phone numberA FIXED LINE NOT A MOBILE IF POSSIBLE  as I will be calling from France or Monaco,and mobiles country to country can cost a fortune ! If you only have a mobile I will still phone you but cannot talk for too long !!Please Let me know (morning,afternoon or evening) when you can receive a call from me .Try to leave your phone switched on as it annoying for me when I keep getting voicemail when I ring you !!Usually I will get back to you within 24 hours) I will pay for the call. I will NEVER NEVER ask you for any money!)Try if possible to email me (no texts or Facebook entries as I have no time to check these daily) Monday – Friday 9am-5pm avoiding Sunday so that you get a quick reply from me and my wife has time to chat with me !ALWAYS  ALWAYS add your FIXED LINE phone number to every email you send  me  at ian@monaco.mc .

I no longer reveal my phone number on line because when I did I got so many calls I could not work properly in the day and could not sleep properly at night (much to my wife’s annoyance !) I never note phone numbers because there are hundreds of them and the names cease to remind me of the facts of the cases.Also note I DO NOT DOWNLOAD ATTACHMENTS AS THEY OFTEN CONTAIN A VIRUS.Please Scan documents and send them by email if you want me to read them !

I got into helping parents in the sixties when I was elected to Kent County Council and found myself making numerous court appearances helping bereft parents and opposing my own Council in family court proceedings (I NEVER LOST A CASE). Eventually it all became too much  for me to manage and I stopped appearing in court for parents because I had to save my neglected language school which needed my urgent personal attention;

Nearly 40 years later the situation was different;By 2003  I had established very successful language businesses in France and at that time there was a scandal concerning Professor Meadows wrongly accusing mothers of murdering children who had died of cot deaths. I wrote a letter published in the Daily Mail  saying things were worse now for parents than when I was involved in the sixties;

As a result I received around 50 letters from parents outraged because their children had been taken so I “got back into business” I invented the term “forced adoption” to describe “adoption without parental consent” I then created a website, http://www.forced-adoption.com to help distressed parents. I have since then helped thousands (yes thousands!) of parents who have had their children taken by the “SS” especially when their children have been given away to strangers for forced adoption !Unfortunately the law changed in 1989 and I can no longer represent parents in court as although I have a law degree I am not a solicitor or barrister.

I never never ask anyone for money. I was awarded  a law degree (M.A Hons (jurisprudence)from Oxford University but eventually went into business not law .Social workers and family courts have never bothered me or my family but I still hate injustice and especially forced adoption! (I actually invented this phrase around 2003!).I also run two educational  companies so if you want to check up on me before contacting me just click  http://www.regencyschool.com   and http://www.hli.co.uk and then watch the three videos below made by BBC,ITV,and Channel 4 in which I feature.

We usually need to talk by phone (so please make sure you always give me your number each time you contact me) . Emails alone cannot answer the questions I need to ask !I do not need or want a long explanation just the FACTS as they are today NOT how or why they came about !Do tell me at least the basic information

1:-How many children do you have and how old are they ?

2:- Are they living with you,with your ex Partner,with relatives,in fostercare,or placed for adoption?

3 :-Are your children under a section 20,an interim care order, an adoption placement or has there been a final adoption order? When exactly were any of these orders made?

4:-What reasons did the JUDGE (not the ss) give for (a) removing them from your care.(b)(if applicable) deciding that the last and only resort possible was adoption?(c)(if applicable)Stopping or severely restricting your contact?

5:-Have you, or your Partner, or the father/mother of your children got 1) a criminal record and do you have problems with 2)drugs or 3) alcohol?(Don’t worry even if you have all three as I will still advise you and help you .)

6:- What is your objective now? What are you doing to achieve it and how do you think  I can best help you do that?

Short one or two line answers please ! Not a complete life story !

I REPEAT ! ALWAYS  ALWAYS add your PHONE NUMBER to every email you send me at ian@monaco.mc . I never note phone numbers because there are hundreds of them and the names cease to remind me of the facts of the cases.

 Please use regular email to scan and send vital court papers or letters (no attachments please as they often contain viruses!))Remember again to send me essential facts:- How many children are involved,,how old they are,your relationship to them,who they are living with and MOST IMPORTANT  your objective=,What you want me to help you achieve;A long life story with even longer explanations is Not necessary and usually is NOT helpful !

GENERAL ADVICE FOR PARENTS IF THE”SS” THREATEN TO SNATCH YOUR CHILDREN OR HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THEM

1:-Ignore social workers!They make their living snatching children so they are your enemies.They have NO AUTHORITY  so you should NEVER OBEY THEM  Never SIGN anything they give you ,Never go to their meetings,never let them in your house unless police are present, Say ” I am really very sorry but I have been advised not to speak to you until my children’s future has been definitely settled by the court .”

2;-Tell your children at home or at school to say to strangers and especially social workers”My mummy (or daddy) has told me not to speak to you unless she is there too !

3:- Do not hire a lawyer ,especially if advised to do so by  “helpful social workers”! They want to WIN in court and they can only do that if they make sure that YOU LOSE!Solicitors and Barristers in the family courts are known in the trade as “Professional losers” because they work with the local authorities and gag parents in court to stop them making any useful points. They then agree to care orders and anything else the social workers want !If you do not engage a lawyer you will automatically represent yourself and can prepare a statement in advance(I can help you with this ) that you can read out loud to the judge !You do NOT need a solicitor or barrister who will just surrender to the “SS” !

WHAT TO SAY IN COURT:-

Remember when you go to court that your object is to WIN the case and get your children back home with you !  You can only do this if you can show the judge that the children will be safe from harm and will be loved if they are left with you !

Your best chance of winning is to be the nicest person in court .Never say anything bad about anyone in a family court ! Say how sad it is that social workers and others have made a terrible mistake in your case and NOW is the time to put matters right !

You must concentrate on proving that you are a good parent and that all allegations against you are false if you want to win your kids back instead of losing them like most people do in the family courts; To do this try and establish that you and your spouse/partner(when applicable)  ,have no criminal record,no problems with drugs or alcohol,no learning difficulties,no mental problems,no ongoing domestic violence ,and a suitable home where the children can live.This will serve you better than any complaints about social workers or the courts !

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 timidly ;and if they say you are too shy and withdrawn be a bit aggressive ! If the police arrest you and/or 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.Remember to stress that your children miss you NOT that you miss your children. It is your kid’s needs that must come first NOT your own !

CROSS EXAMINATION (your right to question witnesses,especially untruthful social workers !)

You must ask questions and NEVER make speeches in cross examination.The witnesses will say what they want to say and you should note anything that is not true asking them “what evidence have you for that?Why do you say such a thing when you know it is not true? When did you see me ever harm my children?Can you read the future?If not how can you say I will harm my children one day?

PLEASE READ THROUGH THIS STATEMENT/SKELETON ARGUMENT VERY CAREFULLY  !
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)
TEMPLATE STATEMENT TO BE CORRECTED AND ADJUSTED BY THE PARENT TO SUIT YOUR PARTICULAR CASE
THEN READ IT ALOUD TO THE COURT !
STATEMENT
 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
1:-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:-My children have always been happy, well dressed,clean,never underweight, always healthy, with  excellent attendance and work records at their schools 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.The former Minister for Children (Simon Hughes) emphasised that children’s voices must be heard in person and not through third parties;yet I have been refused permission to call my son as my chief witnesses 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.”

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.”

NOW  See 5 videos by BBC, ITV, Channel 4,  a French production company  and  a speech from a conference in London on this site http://www.forced-adoption.com. The fact that I feature (positively) in all these  must surely show that my advice  deserves serious  consideration!

Contact me at ian@monaco.mc 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 !

PLEASE WATCH THESE FABULOUS VIDEOS !!

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

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

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

  3. See the programme below on Channel 4 News

  4. Ian Josephs speaking at the ‘Children Screaming to be Heard’ conference, London April 2016   https://youtu.be/d8sukVI0UMM

  5. Les enfants volés d’Angleterre
    Documentary lasting 1 hour + in French shown on national French television (Channel 5) in Nov 2016 and then in top cinemas in Paris and all over France .

lawrence

Scroll down for a more detailed summary which explains what is wrong,why it is wrong, what can be done to put it right , and also my more explanatory contact détails . Click on the menu at the very top of this page for any of the other sections you wish to consult.


SECTION 31 CHILDREN ACT 1989 is The worst  ever Act of Parliament re children 

 Care and SupervisionE+W
(1)On the application of any local authority or authorised person, the court may make an order—
(a)placing the child with respect to whom the application is made in the care of a designated local authority; or
(b)putting him under the supervision of a designated local authority F1. . ..
(2)A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied—

(a)that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b)that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—

(i)the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or
(ii)the child’s being beyond parental control.

JUDGES AND SOCIAL WORKERS SHOULD LEAVE  FUTURE PREDICTIONS TO  FORTUNE TELLERS AT THE FAIR GROUND AS THEY HAVE  CRYSTAL BALLS,TAROT CARDS, AND YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THAT JUDGES AND SOCIAL WORKERS DO NOT !!













New figures from the Department for Education disclosed for the first time that the authorities lost track of one in 10 children in care in 2017, with some going missing more over a month.
There were 60,720 incidents where a child went missing last year, meaning that on average children in care go missing six times per year.

And what about the children themselves?!
Well, when children of school age are taken into care they are gagged and usually are not allowed to testify in court that they want to return home even when begging to do so.

Squads of uniformed police cart them off at around 6.30am often screaming for their parents , and terrified when their mobile phones and laptops are confiscated to isolate them from family and friends.

At parents’ contact visits children in care are not allowed to discuss their cases, say they want to go home, complain of sexual or physical abuse by fosterers or social workers or even speak their own language if they are foreign. If they do any of these things contact is stopped.

DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

A devastated father who is forced to speak to his severely autistic daughter through a hole in a door has won an extraordinary legal battle to talk about their plight after a council tried to gag him.
Jeremy from Walsall has now revealed his 17-year-old child Bethany is fed and talked to through the hole in the metal door to her tiny cell in a psychiatric hospital.
Bethany has been locked away for almost two years with just a mattress and a chair in a 12ft by 10ft room which costs £13,000 a week to theNHS.
Outraged by his daughter’s treatment for autism and sever anxiety, Jeremy began a social media campaign to free her.
But last week he was taken to court for his posts, as Walsall council sought an injunction to ban him from broadcasting details about her.
This would have meant he was breaking court imposed rules if he talked about her health or the facility she was being held in.
‘The attempt to silence me was never about caring for Bethany, it was never about protecting Bethany’s rights,’ the ex-teacher told The Times.

Murderers and rapists in prison are treated much better than children in care as even the very worst criminals are allowed to phone and speak to  their visitors about anything they like in any language they choose.

SO TELL YOUR CHILDREN THE TRUTH !!

The “SS” will be telling your children in care that you (their mother or father)do not love them and do not want them at home at all!Eventually the children will believe this unless you tell them the truth and will even be” persuaded” to say they do not want to see you any more !

Talk by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division
The 6th Annual ‘Voice of the child’ FJYPB Conference in Manchester
24 July 2018
When I spoke at your Conference last year I apologised for the fact that I had failed you. I was referring to one of the most pressing issues we need to grapple with: how the family justice system can meet the aspirations and accommodate the needs of children who want to come to court, perhaps just to see the court, perhaps to give evidence or perhaps to meet the judge. I had to tell you that, despite three years of effort nothing had been achieved. I said that, if you were kind enough to ask me back again, I would report on progress a year later.
Well here I am again. I have to tell you that nothing has been achieved. In fact, matters are even worse now than they were a year ago – the Minister has, just a few days ago, written to me to announce the Government’s decision that the proposals which I and others have been pressing for cannot be implemented. This is deeply depressing news. I can only apologise again for my failure to achieve for you what is, as I believe, plainly the right thing to do.
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.”


Barnsley Chronicle  12/10/2018   Judge Moore compared Social Services to the Nazi “SS” !

A JUDGE likened Barnsley social services to the Nazi Party’s SS after a young girl who had expressed suicidal thoughts was subjected to a naked medical examination without her father’s consent.
“Social services were like the SS of Nazi Germany,” Judge Moore said.“They’re literally the SS in their name and their manner of working is somewhat draconian.

Judge Wilding slams social workers who broke up family over anonymous tip-off that boy, 12, claimed his mother threatened him with a knife

WHAT OTHER JUDGES SAY :-

  1. 1: Lord Justice Thorpe said There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.
  2. 2: Lord Justice Wall (the former Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.
  3. 3: In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West
  4. The podcast and transcript from the Debate that was held on 24 November is now on the Family Justice Council website. Please see the link below.

YOUR CHILDREN IN CARE

Find a way to tell them the truth at contact if possible without the “jailers” noticing or stopping you .You must say how you are fighting in the court to get them back but wicked people have stolen them for money ! Even quite young children can understand this. If you do nothing the “SS” will manage to turn your own children against you so please ACT NOW !

If we must have social workers they should be there to help and support problem families and never never appear as adversaries in a courtroom .That is the function of the police who are there to detect crimes such as abuse or neglect of children and should never be any part of the duties of genuine social workers whose real job should be to help parents and not to snatch their children. IGNORE social workers ;Never obey them ,talk to them,or let them in your house, as they have no authority .They rely on bluff and bluster to get the evidence from you to help them take your children.They make their living that way…….They will even tell you that you will go to prison if you discuss your case with anyone! That is in fact a lie as the law says that you can talk with individuals  but not reveal children’s names or your own name to “sections of the public” (public mmeetings,tv,radio,facebook etc) until all court proceedings have finished and then you can reveal all !!

Figures from the department of Education show there are now 36,000 Social Workers in the UK and only 34,000 GPs ! Yes MORE Social Workers than Doctors !!  UGH!!!

Ignore also legal aid lawyers ,known in the trade as “Professional losers” because they work with the social workers ,gagging  parents (and children in care) to make sure the”SS” win in court Yes “free speech” goes out of the window for parents and children both in and out of our UK  family courts ! .Represent yourself by sacking these  lawyer/enemies who are only there to betray you.Also never go to a psychiatrist or worse still a psychologist chosen by the “SS” or the court (legally they should be chosen jointly).They are known as “hired guns” who diagnose “difficult” parents who resist the “SS” with personality disorders and so unfit to care for babies…
If we must have these biased judges (who believe predictions from absent experts over live testimony from parents)  and prejudiced family courts (L.J.Thorpe)   I CHALLENGE any  judge  to name just one situation that could justify the vile practice of authorising the taking of babies at birth from sane law abiding mothers for “RISK” of emotional abuse and then giving these babies and young children up for adoption by complete strangers .I maintain that.in NO circumstances can  such horrors.be justified….

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

Boy, eight, was taken from his family and put in foster care after social worker said his mother didn’t take him for ice cream or let him get his hair cut how he liked

  • Mr Justice Mostyn described the social worker’s claims as ‘utterly insubstantial’
  • The boy, now eight, taken away from his mother and made to live in foster care
  • Social worker said ‘best example’ of neglect was not giving the boy ice cream
  • Mr Justice Mostyn overruled a court hearing Swansea to rule he can return home


A Freedom Of Information request has revealed that at least 5,000 children in care in England and Wales, have been separated from their siblings.
The staggering figure was revealed after 50 councils responded to the request. The actual figure, however, is likely to be much higher. There are 125 ‘single tier’ authorities in England and Wales, which all function as billing authorities for Council Tax and local education authorities.

Can you go to the omsbudsman who is there we are told to correct any injustice by public authorities??

NO alas the secret family courts are exempt and nothing they do or say however horrific can be challenged by the omsbudsman There is too much cash being made to allow any interference !


Social Services view happy UK families that want nothing to do with them or their services as “the enemy” to be crushed and broken up at all costs!
They split husbands from wives (or partners) ,separate siblings from each other, banish the grandparents,and promote more and more fostering and adoptions every year.
The system feeds on itself ,yes there are huge financial incentives for fostering and adoption agencies and special schools , but the expansion happens irrespective of these as more and more people make a living out of other folk’s misery !Foreign siblings are extra special targets as not only are their phones and laptops confiscated to isolate them from family and friends but they are forbidden to speak their own language even to each other. Only English allowed even if they do not know more than a few words !
All the above is usually quite enough to break the spirit of even the most rebellious children and that gladdens the heart of the child snatchers !

BEWARE ,BEWARE ,BEWARE !!

Crooked solicitors and bent barristers who betray you  as they work for the SS not for you ! HOW DO YOU TELL WHO THEY ARE????It really is very very easy !!!These treacherous scoundrels gag their own clients and tell them to “work with social services” !(the very same people who make their living taking children and who perhaps took your’s) Yes they stop parents defending themselves and then agree with everything the “SS” demand !

Yes there are a very few “honest lawyers” ;How do you tell who they are? Well, if they promise you to fight the social services every step of the way to keep your children or to get them back and also if they promise to let you speak so that you can make all the points you like (not just let you answer questions!) then you might have hit on a good’un !

If your lawyers gag you  SACK THEM ON THE SPOT IN COURT and represent yourself so you can at least defend yourself against the false allegations that are sure to be made against you..If you do not deny what the “SS” say about you the judge will assume that everything they say about you is true !NEVER be gagged!Deny false allegations.

Nearly as bad are “advisors” who are not lawyers but who will promise you miracles if you give them your money ! Beware Beware as most (but not all) of them are scammers living off the misery of others who then lose not only their children but also their money !!Offer to pay reasonable expenses but no actual fee and you will soon see who is genuine !

What should you do then?REPRESENT YOURSELF !!  You do not need a law degree to explain that you are a good mum or dad and that you love your children and would never harm them.At least you can then read out a complete statement in court  denying the false allegations made against you by the “SS” and showing the judge that your children are better off with parents who love them than complete strangers who do not !

JUDICIAL COURT STATISTICS (page 26)

In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.
Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?
Catherine Smith12 May 14:58
On following Ian Joseph,s advice am very proud to say the court has now granted me full parental rights something a couldn’t get before now the rest is simple thanks Ian Joseph now I’m following the rest of instruction and golden rules and will keep you,s up-to date. Am stoped adoption and permanence which was set for June a couldn’t have done this without you and I am the most grateful person in the UK right now and thank you from bottom of my heart, a don’t answer to no one under the judge

Dubious ‘experts’ are paid to tear families apart

A new report condemns the shoddy standards of psychologists’ reports in our family courts.

UK social workers have taken to snatching children abroad who have never even lived here - The baby abducted from France is still being kept from its parents
Many mothers have been declared unfit on the strength of ‘very poor’ psychologists’ reports Photo: ALAMY
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.
BEWARE BEWARE Only agree to see a psychiatrist or psychologist who is qualified ,has a private practice and does NOT make their living appearing in court to declare parents unfit to keep their children !If in doubt ask them how many times they do this and how many private patients they have !
A devastated father who is forced to speak to his severely autistic daughter through a hole in a door has won an extraordinary legal battle to talk about their plight after a council tried to gag him.
Jeremy from Walsall has now revealed his 17-year-old child Bethany is fed and talked to through the hole in the metal door to her tiny cell in a psychiatric hospital.
Bethany has been locked away for almost two years with just a mattress and a chair in a 12ft by 10ft room which costs £13,000 a week to theNHS.
Outraged by his daughter’s treatment for autism and severe anxiety, Jeremy began a social media campaign to free her.
But last week he was taken to coFurt for his posts, as Walsall council sought an injunction to ban him from broadcasting details about her.
This would have meant he was breaking court imposed rules if he talked about her health or the facility she was being held in.
‘The attempt to silence me was never about caring for Bethany, it was never about protecting Bethany’s rights,’ the ex-teacher told The Times.

Why I  invented the phrase “FORCED ADOPTION” and named my site that way.
It was around the year 2003 that I realised that adoption without parental consent (as it was known then) was being carried out despite opposition from parents fighting in court to keep their children.That was  in effect “forced adoption” .I therefore created this” forced adoption” site http://www.forced-adoption.com and the term “forced adoption” has passed into current and popular use in the English language !

product_thumbnail

NOV 2013 – THIRD EDITION NOW AVAILABLE.
My book (448 pages) is available at cost price: £8.86 + postage by clicking here. Or DOWNLOAD A PDF VERSION FREE OF CHARGE
If you don’t have a credit card you can buy a copy directly from the author by sending a cheque or a postal order payable to Ian Josephs for £8.86 to:
Ian Josephs  HLI  20 Avenue de Fontvieille  MC 98000 Monaco
A SHORT EDITION of my book (200 pages) is now also available at cost price: £4.90 + postage (or download for free) by clicking here. Again, you can also buy this directly from the author by sending a cheque or a postal order for £4.90 to the Monaco address above.
These books are also available from Amazon

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

1:- A steady stream of parents flee the country every year to avoid having their babies and young children taken from them by the State for forced adoption. Social workers,behaving like police , take babies at birth from mothers ,not for anything they have done but for something someone with a “Crystal Ball” thinks they might do in the future !

WHERE THE MONEY GOES!!

2014 payment now £590 per week per child!Most fosterers double this by taking in two children ! As advertised on the back of a bus….

busad2014

Despite all these wonderful descriptions of overpaid foster carers, 10,000 children went “missing” from care, as you will see from the article below:
Joint Inquiry into Children Who Go Missing from Care
Extract (point 9):
In June 2012, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the APPG for Looked-after Children and Care Leavers published the report of their joint inquiry into children who go missing from care.
The report argued that the Government was under-reporting the number of children going missing from care. While the official figure for 2011 was 930, the report argues that, according to police data, an estimated 10,000 individual children went missing. The report cited that this high number was symptomatic of a care system which was far from being fit for purpose and in need of an urgent rethink.
For the full report click here
nationalfosteringagency
———- STOP PRESS !The agency above has been sold for £130+million!
  1. Foster care and Adoptions have become  lucrative business. Whether they should be  businesses at all is another question.

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

Inter Agency Fees – CVAAwww.cvaa.org.uk/the-voluntary-adoption-sector/inter-agency-fees
The interagency fee is a nationally agreed mechanism for covering the costs incurred in the preparation, approval and matching of prospective adopters, and the support provided during the first 12 months of a placement. It is currently set at £27,000 for the placement of a single child, with additional rates for the placement ..

Treated like CATTLE!’: Vulnerable children are being auctioned online by councils inviting private firms to bid for up to £7,000-a-week for their care

New report found councils offering contracts for vulnerable children online 
  • Details about age, previous abuse history and gang involvement included in ads 
  • Children in private care can cost over £7,000, while council-run care is cheaper 
  • Local authorities have blamed lack of money and funds for their shortcomings

Children in care are being ‘treated like cattle’, as councils have invited companies to compete in online bidding wars for contracts worth up to £7,000-a-week.
A new report found some councils in England and Wales are putting personal details of vulnerable children in adverts online – including if they were sexually abused or involved in gangs – while inviting bids from private firms for their care.
Children’s care homes are under pressure as private companies are taking over and charging councils more than £7,000 a week – more than £360,000-a-year per child – for residential placements.

Some of the most vulnerable “looked after” children in the country are being failed by privately owned residential homes that are contracted to care for them, it has been claimed.
Undercover reporters secured jobs as care staff at residential homes in Shropshire run by the two largest commercial providers of care for looked-after children: Cambian Group, which runs more than 160 homes, and Keys Group, which runs close to 90.













In covert filming for an ITV documentary that airs tonight, they found evidence of understaffing, inadequate training, and an admission by Cambian employees that poorly performing homes are temporarily closed to avoid failing their Ofsted inspection. The documentary, Who Cares? Children’s Homes Undercover, also shows money being given to underage children to buy tobacco, goading and public humiliation of a teenage boy, and a physical intervention classified by a child protection expert as “restraint” which is played down and then recorded as a less serious form of intervention.
A school in Shropshire run by Cambian for looked-after children attending its homes – recently rated by Ofsted as “good” – is also reported to be in chaos. One pupil repeatedly escapes on to a roof, and a member of staff admits on camera that “it’s awful. I don’t know why they even call it a school. They don’t do anything.”
Another employee says: “I don’t think they’re learning anything here.”
At the end of March this year, there were more than 8,000 children living in residential homesChildren are not placed in institutions except as a last resort, so it is likely that, for the majority of children in residential care, multiple foster placements will already have broken down as a result of their early childhood experiences of neglect and abuse.












Tanya Byron described a careworker publicly shaming a teenager in one episode as ‘everything you shouldn’t do’.
Tanya Byron described a careworker publicly shaming a teenager in one episode as ‘everything you shouldn’t do’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos for the Observer
These young people often have complex needs and may require urgent therapeutic support. However, child psychologist Professor Tanya Bryon, commenting on one episode where a care worker publicly shames a 13-year-old boy in a restaurant, questions the training and expertise shown, describing it as “an example of everything you shouldn’t do when working with vulnerable children”.

Residential care does not come cheap. The filmmakers confirmed with Cambian Group that one home that employed their undercover reporter charges £4,800 a week. A Keys home that features in the film charged a council £5,100 a week. Meanwhile, care staff are told to keep to tight budgets: one worker quoted £5 a day per child for food. At a Cambian home, the budget per child was said to be £45 for activities, with £50 for meals. The two reporters employed by Keys and Cambian were paid £7.20 per hour and £16,500 a year respectively.

MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PIMP OUT A WOMAN IN THEIR CARE !!

Autistic woman, 23, whose condition meant she sought risky sex was allowed to be ‘pimped out’ to strangers by carers so she could ‘learn from her mistakes’
•Woman looked after by Manchester City Council-employed firm Engage Support
•She repeatedly engaged in risky sexual behaviour while in the company’s care
•Led to a two-month scheme in which men were allowed to visit her home for sex
By Rory Tingle For Mailonline
An autistic woman whose condition meant she sought risky sex was allowed to be ‘pimped out’ to strangers by carers so she could ‘learn from her mistakes’, according to a report.

The 23-year-old, who has learning difficulties, went through a two-month trial approved by a court during which random men would visit her Manchester care home for sex during daylight hours.

Is this what they mean by the “Court of Protection” ???????

‘Treated like CATTLE!’: Vulnerable children are being auctioned online by councils inviting private firms to bid for up to £7,000-a-week for their care

  • New report found councils offering contracts for vulnerable children online 
  • Details about age, previous abuse history and gang involvement included in ads 
  • Children in private care can cost over £7,000, while council-run care is cheaper 
  • Local authorities have blamed lack of money and funds for their shortcomings

Child protection

THE GUARDIAN   JUNE 21 2018

Profit drives the UK child protection industry

Social workers escorted by police take terrified children from their mothers every day, write Nina Lopez Jones Anne Neale and Kim Sparrow many going into the 80% of children’s homes and 40% of foster care that have been privatised












Child with carer
‘Thus the “corporate parent” is paid vast sums to replace the impoverished mother (86% of austerity cuts have fallen on women).’ Photograph: Blend Images/Alamy

There is widespread condemnation (Letters, 20 June) at Trump separating immigrant children from their families. But in the UK, away from the public gaze, social workers escorted by police take terrified children from their mothers every day. Louise Tickle urges a “complete reset of attitudes in children’s social care away from removing children and towards supporting families” (Opinion, 15 June).
Our self-help mothers’ group receives calls daily from desperate women whose children or grandchildren have been removed or are being adopted against their will – forced adoptions are the highest in Europe – on speculative and biased assumptions of “emotional harm and neglect”.
In a recent ruling, Judge Mostyn was scathing about a “44-page witness statement” by a Carmarthenshire social worker “very long on rhetoric … but very short indeed on any concrete examples of where and how the mother’s judgment had been deficient”. Examples of “emotional harm” he rejected as “inconsequential and trivial” included failing to take her son out for ice cream and to arrange for him to have the hair cut he liked.
What drives social workers to prioritise taking children on such heartbreakingly spurious grounds? The practice follows the money. Tickle says that “half of the country’s entire public spending on children is going on those 73,000 children [in care]”. But she doesn’t say that 80% of children’s homes and 40% of foster care have been privatised. Thus millions are spent on feeding an increasingly privatised and growing child protection industry: over £2,000 a week for each child in institutional care; at least £450 for foster care.
The law offers a humane alternative. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 instructs local authorities to provide support, including financial, to families so they can stay together; the Care Act 2014 entitles disabled mothers to extra help. But these provisions are hardly ever applied. Thus the “corporate parent” is paid vast sums to replace the impoverished mother (86% of austerity cuts have fallen on women). The way the law is implemented is an abuse of power and must be stopped.
Nina Lopez Jones Support Not Separation Coalition, Anne Neale Legal Action for Women, Kim Sparrow Single Mothers’ Self-Defence

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

NUMBER OF BABIES TAKEN AT BIRTH DOUBLES !!

The first ever national study of newborns in England has revealed that the number of babies taken into care who are less than one week old, has more than doubled in a decade. In most instances, babies would have been taken from their mothers while still in hospital.
The research, which was carried out by Professor Karen Broadhurst, on behalf of the Nuffield Foundation, and which used data supplied by CAFCASS, found that care proceedings were issued for 1,039 newborns in 2007/8, (32% of all cases involving an infant age under 1 year). However, this number had more than doubled at 2,447 newborns (42% of all infant cases), by 2017.

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

ONE OF THE RISKS OF FORCED ADOPTION  IS “ADOPTION BREAKDOWN” !

Figures obtained following a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to all English local authorities indicates that since 2012, across all council areas, there have been as many as 679 breakdowns within the first year of a placement.
During the same period there have been 528 breakdowns after the placement becomes official – making a total of 1,207 breakdowns over the five-year period.

England: 2011 – 2015   NSPCC STATISTICS

Children and young people who were the subject of a Child Protection Plan (CPP)
by category of abuse at 31 March.
Category of abuse 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Neglect 18,600 18,220 17,930 20,970 22,230
Physical abuse 4,800 4,690 4,670 4,760 4,350  = 9.3% reduction since 2011 !
Sexual abuse 2,400 2,220 2,030 2,210 2,340 =  2%reduction since 2011 !
Emotional abuse 11,400 12,330 13,640 15,860 16,660  =46% increase since 2011 !!!
Multiple 5,500 5,390 4,870 4,500 4,110
Total 42,700 42,850 43,140 48,300 49,690

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

Once in court the urgent objective of social workers is to WIN their case come what may as their careers can depend on it, so they produce “hired gun” Professional psychologists/psychiatrists who regularly back them up in the family courts by exaggerating unlikely risks from parents with so called “personality disorders” even if parents have never harmed anyone in their lives !Everyone can have a different opinion about such so called risks but both before and after these babies are snatched family court judges will nearly always rubberstamp the snatching and later order forced adoption of these little mites by strangers ! That way social workers can blame judges for the cruelty these actions entail .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35088794 Record numbers of UK babies taken at birth !!
And if the parents do win in court and are awarded damages they receive nothing as the lawyers take it all and around £200,000 as well for their “costs”

Parents had week-old baby taken away by social services after father …

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

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

Hard to believe this happens in UK? Well every single day, dozens of babies are taken at birth following a prediction of future risk by  social workers and their “experts” .This happens despite the fact that by far the worst risk a court can usually take is to put a child into State care as nearly half such children end up in jail or as prostitutes !UK police have been seen in various videos telling screaming children of the 5-12 age group that they have orders from the court and have to take them away. In fact that was the excuse of the German  SS (Lebensborn) but it did not save the worst of them from the gallows ! Sometimes wicked orders must be disobeyed and if neither parents nor children have committed any serious crime then UK police should refuse to kidnap screaming reluctant children.
Have you spent ages preparing documents and writing down the good points in your case? Well don’t think the judge has the time or inclination to read all that stuff.!Lever arch files full of hundreds of papers that nobody reads !
Here is one judge actually admitting that he has not read the bundles yet he still turned down the appeal !Make sure you convince the judge that you are the best mum (or dad) that your child could wish for.Represent yourself otherwise your bent solicitor or barrister will stop you speaking in court (effectively gagging you) and then they will agree to everything the local authority have asked for !
A v R & Anor 2018

His Honour Judge Scarratt: And so District Judge Abigail Smith’s diary emptied yesterday and I’m afraid this happens. Cases are moved about. Not ideal but as it happens I have finished my five applications and given judgment so I’m, 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 –

Even worse, not dozens but hundreds of babies are taken every year  from their law abiding mothers for mere future risk,(usually from verbally abusive partners,often long departed or in jail !) and handed over  for expensive fostercare or forced adoption in the UK!The idea of the “SS” being that the unfortunate mothers never hear from their children for the rest of their lives..

.Unless of course you have the cash to bribe a social worker to get the adopter’s address ! Yes some of them are open to” Under the counter” cash payments !

North Somerset Council worker ‘sold child’s whereabouts’

Androulla Farr, 50, of West Wick, Weston-super-Mare, admitted one count of bribery or corruption while working for North Somerset Council.
Ms Farr accepted the £2,000 bribe, even though the child’s details were protected by an adoption order, North Somerset Magistrates’ Court was told.
She is due before Bristol Crown Court for sentencing on 6 June.
North Somerset Council confirmed Ms Farr left the authority in 2006.

“We have been helping the police with their inquiries regarding this case,” the spokesman added.

CORRUPT SOCIAL WORKER FABRICATES EVIDENCE !!

A social worker has appeared before a professional disciplinary panel after she was found by a judge to have fabricated evidence to bolster the case for removing a child from the mother’s care and then lied in court about having done so.
Linda Fraser, who works for Bristol city council, could be struck off if the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) concludes that her fitness to practise has been impaired by her conduct.
But the hearing was adjourned after five days of evidence last week and will not reconvene until March. No reason was given for the delay.
Fraser, a senior social worker, was found by a judge in March 2016 to have improperly altered records concerning children in care proceedings – a case in which a mother stood to lose her two children into foster care.













In the original child protection case, held in Bristol, the district judge Julie Exton found that Fraser had added new information to the case notes in 2015 to “bolster” the evidence against the mother.

Watchdog warns ‘ten children a day are being harmed by UK charities’ – with some suffering sexual abuse and physical attacks

  • The Charity Commision findings showed there were 2,114 cases in seven months
  • Figures published by the commission showed cases in a number of UK charities 
  • Sexual abuse, harassment, bullying and physical attacks were listed as concerns

DAILY MAIL

Social services chief is one of three politicians exposed as paedophiles as Telford child sex grooming scandal grows
County councillor Graham Bould groomed 15-year-old he met at a church group

Hundreds more children ‘farmed out’ to care homes miles from where they live despite pledge to cut number

‘These children are being targeted and preyed upon by paedophiles and criminals who know they are vulnerable,’ says Labour MP Ann Coffey
  1. ITV Report

Police officer and government lawyer jailed for child abuse

Child rapist who abused four children as young as EIGHT enjoyed a day out to Buckingham Palacewhen his wife was given an MBE by Prince William

  • Ian Knight, 55, who is a former soldier was found guilty of 10 sex offences
  • The beast attended the palace with his wife, Major Pauline Murray-Knight
  • Celebrities such as Ed Sheeran and JK Rowling were also being honoured
  • Warwickshire Crown Court was told he raped an eight-year-old girl several times 

A female healthcare worker has been arrested on suspicion of murdering eight babies and attempting to murder six others at a Cheshire hospital.
Detectives are investigating the deaths of 17 youngsters at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016, and 15 other ‘non-fatal’ cases.
Police today confirmed they had arrested a woman who they described only as ‘a healthcare professional’ this morning. They have not said whether the woman is a nurse, doctor or worked in another role.
She is being questioned of suspicion of having murdered eight of the children and attempting to murder six others

 DAILY MAIL

Social workers are slammed for failing to question ‘articulate’ adoptive gay father because they ‘looked at him through a positive lens’ before he killed his baby girl – as it emerges NO ONE has been disciplined

  • Matthew Scully-Hicks, 31, shook Elsie Scully-Hicks and threw her down on floor 
  • He denied murdering her but was found guilty by a jury after a four week trial 
  • Murder came just two weeks after he adopted her with his husband Craig
  • Elsie had broken leg and once vomited blood in series of attacks before murder
  • Social services missed chances to save her and saw her 15 times before death
  • Two social workers failed to notice a bruise that was on her forehead for 8 weeks 
  • Report says professionals ‘lacked curiousity’ about string of injuries she suffered 
Matthew Scully-Hicks, 31, from Cardiff, subjected 18-month-old Elsie Scully-Hicks to months of horrific assaults before killing her in an attack so severe her tiny body looked like it had been in a ‘car crash’.
Scully-Hicks, who was married to husband Craig, was visited 15 times by at least three social workers and he made numerous visits to the GP and A&E when he injured Elsie – but there was ‘no concern’ about his parenting.
Professionals viewed him through a ‘positive lens’ and insisted her adoption to the middle class and well-educated gay couple was going well until she died, a Child Practice Review said.
Today Vale of Glamorgan Council social services chief Lance Carver apologised to Elsie’s natural family – who believe she would still be alive today if still in their care.
But Mr Carver also admitted no social workers had been disciplined or sacked over the mistakes because it was ‘not appropriate’.
Matthew Scully-Hicks, 31, from Cardiff, was able to subject 18-month-old Elsie Scully-Hicks to months of horrific assaults despite 15 visits from the authorities in that time and then murdered her
<img id=”i-676cbf08ad82b435″ src=”https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/08/02/11/4EC2D4F100000578-6018673-image-m-8_1533205133439.jpg” height=”437″ width=”306″ alt=”Matthew Scully-Hicks, 31, from Cardiff, was able to subject 18-month-old Elsie Scully-Hicks to months of horrific assaults despite 15 visits from the authorities in that time and then murdered her” class=”blkBorder img-share”/>
Matthew Scully-Hicks, 31, from Cardiff, was able to subject 18-month-old Elsie Scully-Hicks to months of horrific assaults despite 15 visits from the authorities in that time and then murdered her
<img id=”i-ecfbced3bf37184f” src=”https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/08/02/11/4EC2D50A00000578-6018673-image-a-9_1533205141509.jpg” height=”437″ width=”306″ alt=”Matthew Scully-Hicks, 31, from Cardiff, was able to subject 18-month-old Elsie Scully-Hicks to months of horrific assaults despite 15 visits from the authorities in that time and then murdered her” class=”blkBorder img-share”/>
Matthew Scully-Hicks, 31, from Cardiff, was able to subject 18-month-old Elsie Scully-Hicks to months of horrific assaults despite 15 visits from the authorities in that time and then murdered her
Yet an official review into her death was published today and said social workers and doctors of lacked ‘professional curiosity’ about Elsie’s injuries.
The toddler suffered a broken leg, mystery bruising including one one her head that lasted for eight weeks and was even taken to hospital vomiting blood.
But each time the injuries were written off as common accidents or illnesses after her ‘articulate’ attacker made up excused.
On May 29 2016 Elsie died, four days after her adoptive father shook her so violently her brain and eyes started bleeding before he threw her her headfirst into the floor, fracturing her skull.

Scully-Hicks was jailed for a minimum of 18 years after a trial last year but Elsie’s biological grandmother Sian O’Brien said he ‘got off lightly’ and her granddaughter should have stayed with her.

Today the NSPCC said:  ‘This was a needless and violent crime which took the life of a defenceless young toddler


Former foster carer, 58, who raped and sexually abused five children for more than a decade is jailed for 22 years

  • Gary Teague raped children he offered his home to, waiting until they were alone
  • The 58-year-old, of Ramsgate, denied all the 14 charges, claiming they were lies
  • He was convicted of several charges including rape at Canterbury Crown Court

Senior judge suspended over allegations about his scandalous affair ..


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Senior-judge-suspended-allegations-scandalous-affair-25-year-…
Jun 29, 2009 – Judge Gerald Price QC was stood down until an investigation is completed into his conduct during a relationship with a rent boy 35 years his junior. The judge, who is married, was said to have invited the prostitute to sit beside him during court hearings, to have taken him along on official business trips, and …

In 1992 the Government reported on how the CHILDREN Act was working in practice.
The report’s preface, signed by Virginia Bottomley, stated that, since it was now recognised that “the best place for children to grow up in is in their own home with their own family”, the number of children “entering compulsory care” had fallen to 1,600, just a quarter of the previous figure; so that only 5,000 children were now “being looked after by local authorities”.
The contrast to what has happened since, is staggering, Today the number of children in care in the UK is more than 90,000.AN INCREASE OF 1700% !
Ninety children are being taken into care every day in England and Wales and it’s claimed social workers are “firefighting” the most serious cases late into the night.
Prof Ray Jones, who works in social services improvement, says staff fear children slip through the net as they try to keep up with rising pressures.
Latest government figures show 32,810 children were taken into care in 2017.
Ministers said extra money was being targeted towards improving services.
The total number of children in care is a record 72,670 – up 3% on 2016.
Council bosses, who are responsible for child protection services, say it’s the biggest rise in seven years.

“THEY ” will tell you to to “keep quiet”after they have taken your newborn baby or young children.”Speak to nobody about this,not even your family” they will often say”  “Otherwise you will go to jail” .Such liars they are, because the truth is below…………

Section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989This provides that:
No person shall publish to the public at large or any section of the public any material which is intended, or likely, to identify (a) any child as being involved in any proceedings before the High Court, a county court or a magistrates’ court in which any power under this Act or the Adoption and Children Act 2002 may be exercised by the court with respect to that or any other child; or (b) an address or school as being that of a child being involved in any such proceedings.
You can tell your story and the names of yourself and your children to as many individuals as you like so PLEASE do not be suckered into gagging yourself ! You cannot tell the public at large (TV,the internet,radio,or when speaking at  a public meeting) that is all .
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……….

socialworkerlied

Too many children taken into care??

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

Care applications in June 2017

June 2017 statistics from Cafcass


In June 2017, Cafcass received a total of 1,319 care applications. This figure represents a 2.8% increase compared with those received in June 2016.

April 2016 – March 2017
  • Between April 2016 and March 2017 Cafcass received a total of 14,579applications.
  • This figure is 14% higher when compared with the previous financial year.

April 2015 – March 2016
  • Between April 2015 and March 2016 Cafcass received a total of 12,792applications.
  • This figure is 15% higher when compared with the previous financial year.

April 2014 – March 2015
  • Between April 2014 and March 2015 Cafcass received a total of 11,159applications.
  • This figure is 5% higher when compared with the previous financial year.

Please click here to view the spreadsheet, which, in addition to the monthly national stats, has a tab displaying a breakdown of application and children numbers by local authority for each complete quarter from April 2012.
The spreadsheet has been updated with the local authority applications per 10,000 child population for 2016-17.

According to Hugh Thornbery, chief executive of the leading adoption charity Adoption UK, 25 per cent of adoptive families are what he calls, quite simply, ‘in crisis’, with the mental and physical health of the those families at serious risk.

And what about the children themselves?!

Well, when children of school age are taken into care they are gagged and usually are not allowed to testify in court that they want to return home even when begging to do so. Laptops and mobiles are confiscated to isolate them from family and friends. At parents’ contact visits children in care are not allowed to discuss their cases, say they want to go home, complain of sexual or physical abuse by fosterers or social workers or even speak their own language if they are foreign. If they do any of these things contact is stopped.Murderers and rapists in prison are treated much better than those children as prisoners in jail are allowed to phone out and speak to  their visitors about anything they like in any language they choose.
If a single mum (for example) is told by a neighbour “a social worker called on you while you were out” the reaction would not be “what a pity I missed her” but would almost certainly be “My God they are after my children !”All this is why social workers are the most hated profession in the country

In 1992 the Government reported on how the CHILDREN Act was working in practice.
The report’s preface, signed by Virginia Bottomley, stated that, since it was now recognised that “the best place for children to grow up in is in their own home with their own family”, the number of children “entering compulsory care” had fallen to 1,600, just a quarter of the previous figure; so that only 5,000 children were now “being looked after by local authorities”.
The contrast to what has happened since, is staggering, Today the number of children in care in the UK is more than 90,000.AN INCREASE OF 1700% !
Ninety children are being taken into care every day in England and Wales and it’s claimed social workers are “firefighting” the most serious cases late into the night.
Prof Ray Jones, who works in social services improvement, says staff fear children slip through the net as they try to keep up with rising pressures.
Latest government figures show 32,810 children were taken into care in 2017.
Ministers said extra money was being targeted towards improving services.
The total number of children in care is a record 72,670 – up 3% on 2016.
Council bosses, who are responsible for child protection services, say it’s the biggest rise in seven years.

Adoption target met

by Hammersmith and Fulham Press Office 10/03/2008
101 children adopted in the last three years
More than 100 children have been adopted in the borough during the last three years, after the Council met a target from central Government target that many experts thought would be unachievable.
The Government target, known as a Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA), challenged the Council to successfully achieve 101 adoptions or secure placements during the last three year period in return for £500,000 of funding.
At the time, the Council felt that the bar was set too high, as in the previous three year period only 71 children had been adopted – a figure that was then considered to be very high.
However, H&F’s adoption team swung into action and pulled out all of the stops in order to meet the target.

“THEY ” will tell you to to “keep quiet” after they have taken your newborn baby or young children.”Speak to nobody about this,not even your family” they will often say”  “Otherwise you will go to jail” .Such liars they are, because the truth is below…………

Section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989This provides that:
No person shall publish to the public at large or any section of the public any material which is intended, or likely, to identify (a) any child as being involved in any proceedings before the High Court, a county court or a magistrates’ court in which any power under this Act or the Adoption and Children Act 2002 may be exercised by the court with respect to that or any other child; or (b) an address or school as being that of a child being involved in any such proceedings.
You can tell your story and the names of yourself and your children to as many individuals as you like so PLEASE do not be suckered into gagging yourself ! You cannot tell the public at large (TV,the internet,radio,or when speaking at  a public meeting) that is all .
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……….
LIARS ?  YES !  So here she is again and no prizes for guessing what she is doing !

socialworkerlied

Too many children taken into care??

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

Care applications in June 2017

June 2017 statistics from Cafcass


In June 2017, Cafcass received a total of 1,319 care applications. This figure represents a 2.8% increase compared with those received in June 2016.

April 2016 – March 2017
  • Between April 2016 and March 2017 Cafcass received a total of 14,579 applications.
  • This figure is 14% higher when compared with the previous financial year.

April 2015 – March 2016
  • Between April 2015 and March 2016 Cafcass received a total of 12,792 applications.
  • This figure is 15% higher when compared with the previous financial year.

April 2014 – March 2015
  • Between April 2014 and March 2015 Cafcass received a total of 11,159 applications.
  • This figure is 5% higher when compared with the previous financial year.

Please click here to view the spreadsheet, which, in addition to the monthly national stats, has a tab displaying a breakdown of application and children numbers by local authority for each complete quarter from April 2012.
The spreadsheet has been updated with the local authority applications per 10,000 child population for 2016-17.

 According to Hugh Thornbery, chief executive of the leading adoption charity Adoption UK, 25 per cent of adoptive families are what he calls, quite simply, ‘in crisis’, with the mental and physical health of the those families at serious risk.

And what about the children themselves?!

Well, when children of school age are taken into care they are gagged and usually are not allowed to testify in court that they want to return home even when begging to do so. Laptops and mobiles are confiscated to isolate them from family and friends. At parents’ contact visits children in care are not allowed to discuss their cases, say they want to go home, complain of sexual or physical abuse by fosterers or social workers or even speak their own language if they are foreign. If they do any of these things contact is stopped.Murderers and rapists in prison are treated much better than those children as prisoners in jail are allowed to phone out and speak to  their visitors about anything they like in any language they choose.
If a single mum (for example) is told by a neighbour “a social worker called on you while you were out” the reaction would not be “what a pity I missed her” but would almost certainly be “My God they are after my children !”All this is why social workers are the most hated profession in the country
THE ONLY JUDGE TRYING TO REFORM FAMILY COURTS IS PRESIDENT SIR JAMES MUNBY
The Law Gazette:- reports.on the RETIREMENT of Sir James MUNBY……..
Lately, Munby has repeated calls for urgent action to address the needs of children and vulnerable witnesses in family proceedings. Rules and practice directions recommended by a working group he set up two years ago were still not in place.

Munby said he did not want to have to start 2018 with a further call to action, adding that there was ’depressingly little to show for over two years’ hard pounding’.

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

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

“I believe that suspicion of parents and of families has become corrosive, and is distorting the values of our profession.
For the last 20 plus years the number of investigations or assessments into families suspected of child abuse has climbed steadily upwards and now accounts for one in 20 families in England and Wales !!!
recent analysis found that since the Children Act 1989 referrals have increased by 311%, from 160,000 per year to 657,800 per year, between 1991 and 2014.
Assessments have increased by 302% over the same period, from 120,000 to 483,800, while the number of cases of ‘core abuse’ have fallen. The figures show that the ratio of referrals to registrations have fallen year on year from 24.1% to 7.3%.

Child protection dominates work

These assessments will have been carried out mainly by social workers. For social workers in statutory children and family teams there is no doubt that ‘child protection’ dominates every aspect of their work. Despite there being no significant rise in the number of children who die as a result of parental abuse or neglect, risk of abuse is assumed to be high.
What does this say about how social workers view parents and families? And, just as importantly, what must it tell us about how parents view contact with social services? I believe that the evidence is mounting of mutual distrust and fear
“The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent.  That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that ….”
Dave Hill, 57, the new president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS), used his inaugural speech last month to demand a debate about the limits of state interference in family life, saying plainly that “we intervene too often and sometimes too readily”.













Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B:
There is usually no reason in most cases why the child should not be returned to parents under a supervision order.
Contact the Daily MAIL with your story !  tips@dailymail.com
By Steve Doughty for the Daily Mail
Published: 18:06 GMT, 18 February 2014 | Updated: 22:09 GMT, 18 February 2014
e-mail
Judges and social workers have been conspiring to remove children unjustly from their parents, a scathing High Court ruling said today.
It condemned family court judges for a ‘clandestine arrangement’ which meant that they simply rubber-stamped the demands of social workers without giving a fair hearing to the pleas of parents.
Rulings by family judges were ‘cut and pasted’ from recommendations emailed to the court by social workers, the High Court found

The secret dealings between council officials and local judges were revealed in a High Court appeal in which Mrs Justice Pauffley ordered that a mother be re-united with her baby.
The baby was taken by social workers following a court case described by Mrs Justice Pauffley as ‘profoundly alarming’.
The High Court judge warned that ‘the practices I have described are not confined to this area but are widespread across the country’.
She said of the case, which involved judges at an unnamed family court and social workers employed by an unnamed council: ‘It is difficult to view the justices as having been independent and impartial if, as happened here, they simply adopted the local authority’s analysis of what their findings and reasons might comprise.
‘Just because there may be tacit acceptance on the part of many professionals within the family justice system that the practice which operated here exists, that does not mean it is right.
‘It is patently wrong, must stop at once and never happen again.
The order to end collusion between judges and social workers was endorsed yesterday by the most senior family judge, President of the Family Division Sir James Munby

The secrecy surrounding the two court systems is now being loosened on the instructions of Sir James, who has acted to prevent both clandestine imprisonment and the removal of children from foreign mothers by British judges.
The exposure of private arrangements between family judges and social workers was exposed following an appeal by a mother whose child was taken into care.
The 32-year-old mother, a longstanding drug and drink abuser with a history of domestic violence, had had seven previous children. Six are living with their two fathers and one is in the process of being adopted. When she became pregnant again, she was given a place in a unit run by a specialist family drugs and alcohol service.
Mrs Justice Pauffley said it was ‘plain’ that social workers took a decision in advance to remove her baby, who was born in October last year. They cited the mother’s bleak history.
Family judges first heard the case on 1 November. They were presented with an expert report on the mother, commissioned by social workers and prepared by chartered clinical psychologist Dr Celest Van Rooyen. The psychologist, who also gave ‘very strong and powerful’ evidence in person, said the baby was at risk of harm.
The judges declared that ‘the immediate risk of harm is such that his safety requires the continuing removal from his mother’s care. It is proportionate and in his best interests.’ At a second hearing a week later, the same judges said the baby should stay with foster parents because ‘he needs to form an attachment with his primary carers.’ Mrs Justice Pauffley criticised the handling of the case in blunt and uncompromising language.
She said the Van Rooyen report on the mother had been researched and written in a day and the psychologist had spoken neither to the mother nor the medical and psychological experts with whom she and the baby were living. Instead, Dr Van Rooyen had relied on documents and a phone call to a social worker.
Mrs Justice Pauffley said: ‘It surprises and alarms me that Dr Van Rooyen was asked, and was prepared, to provide a report during the course of a single working day, a terrifyingly tight timeframe, and on the basis of papers supplemented by a telephone conversation with a local authority professional who had never met the mother.
‘I struggle to understand how Dr Van Rooyen’s apparently firm opinions, adverse to the mother, could have been formed given the complete absence of any kind of discussion with her.’ The High court judge said the family court judges had not written their own ‘findings of fact and reasons’ – their ruling in the case. The entire document had instead been emailed to them by lawyers for the local council before the 1 November hearing.



A near-identical document was drawn up by the judges after the second hearing. Mrs Justice Pauffley said this was ‘the result, almost certainly of cutting and pasting.’ Mrs Justice Pauffley said this practice ‘has become the norm’ in local family courts.
She said she was ‘profoundly alarmed’ at the practice, which was widespread.
‘There was, apparently, an established but largely clandestine arrangement between the local authority and the court which, to my mind, has considerable repercussions for justice.’ Mrs Justice Pauffley added: ‘In public law proceedings the local authority is the applicant. It is not and should never be seen as the decision maker. That is the role of the court.

BUT 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 betweenLuke 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.

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

1:-No Punishment without Crime. Children must never be removed for simple “risk” (of something that may never happen)
Children must never be considered for removal from their parents unless a parent has been convicted in a criminal court of a serious crime against a child or children.If a parent is charged with such a crime the child or children may be removed temporarily but returned if the parent is acquitted.Parents of foreign children taken into care or placed for adoption should be deported with their children to their home country if that is their choice made to keep their families together.
2:- Parents and children must never be legally gagged
Restore absolute freedom of speech and public protest as already exists in the USA;. Parents must be allowed to identify themselves and protest via the media if their children are taken from them.When children are in care they should be allowed free discussion with relatives and friends,and given  mobile phones if of an age when they can use one.They should be allowed to speak their own language (if foreign) to parents and others.All allegations of abuse in care should be investigated by police and never ignored.Parents must have the right to call their own children to court as their witnesses (Article 6 human rights act ) irrespective of age.
3:-Always allow some form of contact between non criminal parents and children..
Parents not guilty of crimes against children must never be deprived of  face to face contact with their children; but even if they have been convicted of such crimes (providing those offences do not include child sexual relations or violence towards their own children) they should then still be allowed to initiate indirect contact by phone,email,or post . Non molestation orders should only have effect if a parent molests a partner ,spouse or child ;To molest =to intentionally harass or annoy  (Oxford dictionary) and must not extend to legal  prevention of indirect contact.

4:-Abolish forced adoption !
Forced adoption = adoption despite active opposition from parents via the courts and other forms of protest.The UK is the only country in the world in which babies can be taken at birth for “risk of future emotional abuse” and then forcibly adopted despite law abiding mothers begging to keep them !.
5:-Abolish closed adoptions!
Adoptions in the UK are nearly always “closed” meaning that the parents do not know who is adopting their children or where they are going.Bereft parents usually lose contact with their precious children permanently ie for the rest of their lives and never know whether their children are alive or dead !
All adoptions should be “open” so that parents know who has care of their children and occasional contact can be arranged.
CAN THIS WORK? Well look at the USA where a recent survey found that 100 infant adoption programs in the United States reported 5% of their adoptions were completely closed, while 55% were fully open and 40% were mediated through an agency.

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

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

  • Woman lost 16 babies one after another and is still of child-bearing age;The judges refuse to give her a chance to keep even one of them Under a supervision order;despite hair tests showing her 100% free of any drugs,or alcohol !
  • Study shows dramatic increase in babies being removed by the courts
  • In 2008, a total of 802 babies were taken into care, rising to 2,018 in 2013
  • Education Secretary Nicky Morgan called for the end of the ‘cycle of failure’
  • Cameron orders blitz of failing social services where children are at risk 

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

  • New figures mark a 13per cent increase over two years deemed at risk of physical or emotional negligence
  • Campaigners said to put unborn children on register presumes parents will be negligent
Thousands of babies are being put on ‘at risk’ registers by social workers before they are even born, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
And campaigners say the system is weighted to presume that parents will be unable to adequately care for their children.
New figures released under Freedom of Information laws show that more than 4,000 child protection plans – which are automatically implemented for those registered as at risk – were initiated last year in England for babies still in the womb, which represents a 13 per cent increase over two years.
The figure for the UK as a whole is likely to be nearer 5,000, and hundreds of babies are being taken into care each year within days of birth.
Statistics  that show how much it all costs and how thousands of children run away from wonderful State Care (usually back to their parents !).The parliamentary briefing clearly states “Using the data collected and approach adopted this year we estimate that the average cost of residential care provision per child per week is around £2,900   !!!
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04470.pdf  = VERY COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS COMPILED FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY
  1. Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk
  2. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35064228
  3. Child protection register statistics: England: 2011 – 2015 –
  4. .‘Huge rise’ in newborn babies subject to care proceedings – BBC News
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35088794
    JUDICIAL COURT STATISTICS (page 26)
    In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.
    Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?
    Lord Justice Thorpe said” There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.”
    Thorpe admits the parents are prejudiced by the courts if the proceedings take place after removal of their children by social workers(which of course happens more often than not !)
    Sad admission of disgracefully biased court procedures in our much praised UK judicial system
IF  you missed them at the beginning ,here is another chance to see the 3 fabulous videos made by the BBC, ITV,and Channel 4 news!
Watch the BBC film   ‘Families flee UK to avoid forced adoption’. Inside Out was broadcast on BBC One South East on Monday, 6 October 2014. Rachel Royce reports.!
Here’s the link to share this: https://forced-adoption.com/#insideout.
  1. Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1N9r2Vieg    A mother screams in agony as her newborn baby is ripped from her arms………

  2. See the programme below on Channel 4 News

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

  4. On November 15th 2016 a documentary aired on French television called ‘England’s Stolen Children’. ‘Researching Reform’ provided comment and a useful translation of the explanation of the programme’s contents.  If your French is good enough, you can watch the documentary here.
: Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform  our  family courts and social services all on one page !

http://www.forced-adoption.com .Irepeat !  More detailed information about how to contact me and how I CAN HELP YOU

lawrence

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

I will give free legal advice and other help to ANY parent (or grandparent) ha>ving problems with social workers who are removing or threatening to remove  children for fostercare or adoption. Unlike legal aid lawyers I usually advise parents to fight  the”SS” childsnatchers every step of the way !
Please give me a contact phone number from any country in the world no matter where you live. (MOBILES ARE OK !) and times available to receive a call. I will  then phone you back at my expense.(Use a public phone box if you do not wish to reveal your number). This site http://www.forced-adoption.com is full of information that is useful to help parents whose children have been taken.Maybe have a quick glance through before phoning.

For a speedy reply email me  ian@monaco.mc   Monday – Friday 9am-5pm  when possible!Other times are ok if really urgent,but My wife says “PLEASE LEAVE HIM ALONE ON SUNDAY so he can have one day with his family !!”  I will ring you  at my expense!(USUALLY THE SAME DAY).Please therefore leave your phone available and switched ON 9am-5pm or at least tell me to ring morning,afternoon or evening, because it is very frustrating for me to continually get voicemail  when I am trying to give you help and advice !ALWAYS add your phone number to your emails . I never note numbers because there are hundreds of them and the names cease to remind me of the facts of the cases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember always that “adoption” is a wonderful,wonderful,thing if it is truly voluntary but it is a wicked, wicked crime if forced on parents desperate to keep their children .A punishment almost as bad as execution………
What then is forced adoption ?
Adoption without consent” covers all cases where a baby or young child is adandoned,or parents cannot be found,or where parents who may have ill treated the child do not give consent but do not actively oppose adoption.
FORCED ADOPTION is the adoption of a baby or young child despite opposition from a parent or close family member expressed in the family courts.Generally speaking parents who batter their children or severely neglect them  do not go near a court if they can help it. The vast majority of parents who do go to court pleading to keep the child or children they love plead “We have done nothing wrong ,we have broken no laws we love our children and want to keep them,” but those children nevertheless do mostly go for adoption by strangers because of “risks” of future harm;risks that may never happen; ! That is FORCED ADOPTION……………….
When children are “in care” or given to one parent and forbidden to the other;how can any rational person deny even indirect contact with their kids to to either a mother or father forbidding letters,emails,or phone calls ,and put them in prison for sending a birthday card,or waving at their children as they pass in the street, or even posting happy 21st birthday on Facebook,( Yes I did say 21st !) or worst of all, 3 years jail for meeting at a petrol station…… Poor ,poor,UK .
Government figures tell us that the average cost of keeping a child in a “children’s home” is £2900 per week per child !! More than 3 times the cost of sending Prince Harry to Eton !!
The agencies that find Foster families and adoptive parents for Local Authorities are even more profitable ;One agency founded 15 years ago by two social workers was recently sold for £130 million+ as it was making more than £10million profit per year.
When will the public realise that the whole system is a scam quietly robbing the taxpayers under a veneerof respectability?

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM

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

STOP PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME!
25,000+ children are removed every year from UK parents, most of whom have not committed any crimes and who are not addicted to alcohol or drugs. UK Parents are drastically punished  when their young children and newborn babies are removed for fostering by strangers (relatives are sometimes assessed but usually failed and ignored contrary to the Children Act 1989)  or forced adoption. Many are taken for ‘risk’ of future emotional harm;  yet an average of 10,000 children in ‘State care’ go missing every year (all party parliamentary group findings), surely a greater risk? Judgements published on Bailii prove that Judges rely heavily on hearsay (reports from absent witnesses) in family courts that, unlike criminal courts, are secret,do not allow trial by jury, refuse to admit relatives or allow parents to call witnesses, refuse a second expert opinion, quote parents’ previous offences committed 20+ years ago and often forbid parents to contact their own children. A mother, after reporting the father for sexual abuse, was disbelieved and jailed for 3 years for meeting her daughter against court orders. Another mother was jailed for sending a birthday card and a father jailed for waving at his children in care as they passed by in the street.Cases of child abuse or neglect should be dealt with by criminal courts where parents are presumed innocent of such offences unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
STOP GAGGING PARENTS & CHILDREN!
Babies are taken at birth for ‘RISK of emotional abuse’ (often from a long-departed or jailed ex-partner who was violent or who just shouted when angry). Young children are taken into care because of one unexplained bruise or fracture despite no previous history of injuries. Parents are judged on mere probabilities (51%) ‘guilty of abuse or neglect unless proved innocent’ and their children are fostered permanently or adopted. Parents are gagged in court by their own lawyers. They are jailed if they reveal their names when protesting in public and sometimes banned by court injunctions from ever discussing their cases with anyone at all! Children in care are also gagged and usually are not allowed to testify in court even when begging to do so. Laptops and mobiles are confiscated to isolate them from family and friends. At parents’ contact visits children in care are not allowed to discuss their cases, say they want to go home, complain of sexual or physical abuse by fosterers or social workers or even speak their own language if they are foreign. If they do any of these things contact is stopped.
ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION!
‘Forced Adoption’ = the adoption of children against the opposition of parents. After adoption, they are never told where their children are or even if they are alive or dead. Parents are punished for life, but since April (CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014) they can still apply for contact after adoption! In the UK adoption, if contested, must legally be a ‘last resort’, yet most other European countries manage without any forced adoptions, proving that other remedies are always possible. Adverts on the back of a bus offer fosterers £590/week per child, and the National Foster Agency, founded by two social workers a few years ago, was recently sold for £130million+! Children’s care homes cost an average £4,000/week per child and the whole system costs over £2 billion/year!
STOP TAKING THE ELDERLY FROM FAMILIES! 
Judges in the secret Court of Protection (highway robbery!) call tame psychiatrists to decide that old people (many of them perfectly lucid) lack ‘capacity’. Parents are separated from family and friends and forced into expensive private nursing homes. Partners and relatives are ejected from their dwellings then the properties are sold after the elderly persons’ bank accounts have been looted to fund social services, lawyers, courts and dubious care homes. Any person alleged to lack capacity should have the right to call their own medical expert to dispute the allegation and to testify in court to demonstrate capacity if they wish. They should be free to protest openly to the media and if found to have capacity,  should have the right to choose their own carers.
ian@monaco.mc.
All facts and figures can be verified from government statistics or other official sources.

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

 The cost of residential care (dept of education)

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

  ( SEE PAGE 4 “executive summary)
      1. . The average weekly cost for local authority provision and the average weekly spend on independent sector provision is comparable.
  • The section 251 financial data collection administered by the Department and completed by all local authorities collects information on local authority annual spend on residential care.
Spend on residential care relates to residential homes and boarding schools.2
    1. In 2012-13, authorities across England report spending a total of £997.2m on residential care. They report spend of £329.2m on their own provision, spend of £616.0m on private sector provision, spend of £8.2m on other local authority or health provision, and spend of £43.8m on voluntary sector provision.3
    2. We can divide each authority’s total reported spend by their reports of usage of residential provision in order to gain insight into the average cost and the variation in the cost of this provision.
    3. The depths of Britain’s ‘worst ever’ child care crisis













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












      In a statement that should have made us all sit up and take note, our top family judge, Lord Justice Munby, last week warned that social workers are now taking so many children into care that our “child protection” system is facing an unprecedented crisis. Since social workers’ failure to prevent the murder of “Baby P” became a major national scandal in 2008, the number of care applications has risen so fast that, by 2015, it had almost doubled, from an annual average of 6,532 to 12,781.
      But this year it has rocketed up again, by a further 26 per cent, to the point where, if it continues to rise at this rate, the annual figure could within three years, according to Munby, have “climbed to 25,000”: nearly four times its pre-Baby P level. Already, despite attempts to speed up the process, the courts are becoming hopelessly overstretched, and unless something dramatic is done, the whole system could be facing complete breakdown.
      Strangely, however, Munby went on to suggest that “the reasons for this are little understood”. In fact, as I have been reporting here for six years, one reason for this explosion in child-snatching is more obvious than any other; and Munby’s failure to recognise it on this occasion is particularly odd, because he himself has more than hinted at it in his own trenchant judgments as president of the Family Division since 2013.
      The only way this immense social disaster could be halted would be to ensure that social workers and the courts return to their proper role under the law, whereby they stop tearing families apart for no good reason
      This is that, in over-reacting to the Baby P fiasco, social workers have become astonishingly trigger-happy, removing far too many children from their parents for wholly inadequate reasons. And chilling light is shed on this by two more sets of statistics. The first, published by the NSPCC, shows what has happened under the four legal justifications for removing children from their families. Between 2006 and 2015, cases where children were taken into care for “neglect” rose by 88 per cent, in line with the overall trend. Despite the supposed increase in concern over “physical abuse” post-Baby P, these cases rose by only 20 per cent. Cases involving sexual abuse of children scarcely rose at all, from 2,300 to 2,340.
      But by far the largest increase, a staggering 278 per cent, has been in cases where it was alleged that parents were exposing their children to “emotional abuse”, a charge much more open to subjective interpretation than the others. And even this is misleading, because it makes no distinction between real emotional abuse, for which at least some evidence can be produced, and the much more speculative claim that children might be exposed to the mere “risk” of emotional abuse some time in the future.












      The number of children in state care stands at its highest since 1989 
      The number of children in state care stands at its highest since 1989  Credit: ALAMY
      Since 2009 I have followed in detail literally hundreds of cases where children have been taken into care for what appeared to be questionable reasons. And in the vast majority of them, as where a mother has her baby snatched from her arms in the delivery ward, or loses her children simply because she herself had been in care (and is therefore deemed unfit to bring up a child of her own), the only excuse given for removing a child is that it might face the “risk” of emotional abuse. No need to show that such abuse has actually taken place. Simply a social worker’s opinion, far too often accepted by the courts, that this might happen in the hypothetical future.
      The other set of figures, produced by a University of Central Lancashire study based on Freedom of Information requests to 114 local councils, showed that, since Baby P, there has been a huge increase in the number of cases where social workers have intervened because of “concerns” raised by teachers, health visitors, doctors or members of the public that something suspicious might be going on, even if this may be only a small bruise on an arm or a neighbour overhearing a mother and father shouting at each other. Thanks to such “referrals”, according to the study, social workers investigated no fewer than one in five of all children born in 2009/10.   But again, many of the cases I have investigated over the years were set off like this, leading to tragic outcomes where social workers successfully based their case almost entirely on those initial ill-founded suspicions, without having to produce any further evidence to support them.
      If Sir James Munby really wants to avert the catastrophe he warned of on Tuesday, and to restore this horrifically corrupted system to some semblance of justice, humanity and common sense – as he has shown many signs of wishing to do – he has no alternative but to identify this major cause of the problem.
      The only way this immense social disaster could be halted would be to ensure that social workers and the courts return to their proper role under the law, whereby they stop tearing families apart for no good reason and concentrate just on those families where their intervention is genuinely justified.
      When a bath is dangerously overflowing, the first thing one needs to do is turn off the tap.












    4. Care applications in January 2017

      January 2017 statistics from Cafcass


      In January 2017, Cafcass received a total of 1,119 care applications.  This figure represents a 7% increase compared with those received in January 2016.
      April 2015 – March 2016 
      • Between April 2015 and March 2016 Cafcass received a total of 12,791applications.
      • This figure is 15% higher when compared with the previous financial year.
      April 2014 – March 2015
      • Between April 2014 and March 2015Cafcass received a total of 11,159applications.
      • This figure is 5% higher when compared with the same period in the previous financial year.
      April 2013 – March 2014
      • During 2013 – 2014, Cafcass received 10,620 new applications.  This figure is 4% higher when compared with the previous financial year.
      Please click here to view a spreadsheet, which, in addition to the monthly national stats, has a tab displaying a breakdown of application and children numbers by local authority for each complete quarter from April 2012 .
      Jan 17 care demand
                                  Care applications received
      2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-17
      Apr        757         919         806         956       1,226
      May        984         983         873         924       1,160
      Jun        809         853         880       1,115       1,281
      Jul        996         877        1,022       1,123       1,305
      Aug        987         828         903         941       1,260
      Sep        879         843         913         985       1,229
      Oct        957         978        1,010       1,090       1,152
      Nov        958         825         890       1,036       1,283
      Dec        864         815         932       1,103       1,080
      Jan        976         889         893       1,045       1,119
      Feb       1,006         891         967       1,239
      Mar        937         919        1,070       1,234
      Total     11,110     10,620      11,159      12,781       12,095
  1. THE CASH RACKET EXPOSED !

    The sad thing is that the sort of parents who really mistreat,assault,or neglect their children rarely go to court to try and keep them ! That sort of person will usually give  courts a very wide berth !
    No ,the “SS” take children from nice happy law abiding families whose parents love them enough to go through months and sometimes years of debilitating court sessions .Surely most of these caring parents should win in court? But nearly all of them of them lose as the stats below prove.
    JUDICIAL COURT STATISTICS (page 26)
    In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.
    Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?
    Stats from BAAF:-
    Placements 75% (52,050) of children looked after on 31st March 2015 were living with foster carers 9% (6,570) were living in secure units, children’s homes or hostels 5% (3,510) were placed with their parents 5% (3,320) were placed for adoption 3% (2,280) were with another placement in the community 3% (1,750) were placed in residential schools or other residential settings Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children 2,630 unaccompanied asylum seeking children were looked after on 31st March 2015 – See more at: http://www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/for-what-reasons-do-other-countries-allow-adoption-without-consent/#comment-62844
    The cost of residential care (dept of education)
  2. Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk

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

    1. www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04470.pdf  = VERY COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS COMPILED FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY
    2. Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk
    3. Child protection register statistics: England: 2011 – 2015 – nspcc
      https://www.nspcc.org.uk/…/childprotection-register-statistics-engl…
    4. Explanation of stats above is that approx 5000 children go missing from care but on average each child runs away (very often back to parents) at least 3 times hence 17,000 reports of missing children !
    5. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/19/parents   (maggie mellon vice chair british association of social workers)
    6. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35088794 Record numbers of UK babies taken at birth !!
    7. Follow the dollar” as they say in New York and there you will usually find the answer ! Only one in 400 care applications is refused by the courts (judicial statistics) Ever Wonder why?1:- Thousands of worthy citizens such as ,social workers,barristers,solicitors,,court appointed experts,judges,cafcass types,fosterers,directors of charities (Barnardos?) and adoption and fostering agencies,directors and owners of special schools,and care homes providing “secure accommodation” etc etc all make a very good living out of it all . The more kids in care the more cash there is to be shared around ! No conspiracies necessary ;just “Birds of a Feather flock together” ! (rather like our MPs fiddling their expenses)
      All bureaucracies grow as fast as they are permitted to do so and the care system is positively encouraged to expand by its eager participants ! Social workers have scorecards to show who can achieve adoptions (mostly forced) in the least possible time !2:-Fostering and adoption agencies make millions in profits as for example the “National fostering and adoption agency” founded by two social workers and then sold on to a highly commercial company for $130,million +! Since then I believe it has been resold again at a huge second profit !3:-Care homes,special schools and similar enterprises charge Councils three or four times the cost of sending Prince Harry to Eton but offer none of the facilities or expertise found at Eton and similar schools so profits in these awful abuse ridden dumps are often enormous !Why should local authorities seek to take more children into care when it costs them so much money? That is a question often posed by social workers on the defensive.
      Well since when did civil servants care how much money they spend if they benefit as individuals with high salaries, all at the taxpayers expense,?Sadly the numbers of kids in care will increase until the public concience is aroused (as it was to abolish slavery,and later kids working in mines and up chimneys);
      Stop punishment without crime,abolish gagging orders, and bring back” free speech” so that parents and children can say what they like to press and public and to each other without being labelled as criminals for doing so.
      This will come about some day but meanwhile children and parents needlessly suffer.

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

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

    Joint Inquiry into Children Who Go Missing from Care

    Extract (point 9):
    In June 2012, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the APPG for Looked-after Children and Care Leavers published the report of their joint inquiry into children who go missing from care.
    The report argued that the Government was under-reporting the number of children going missing from care. While the official figure for 2011 was 930, the report argues that, according to police data, an estimated 10,000 individual children went missing. The report cited that this high number was symptomatic of a care system which was far from being fit for purpose and in need of an urgent rethink.

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

    • 10 December 2015
    • From the section England












    Child holding adult's handImage copyright Thinkstock
    Image caption There was a 2% increase in the number of children in foster care in 2014-15
    Foster children went missing from care in England more than 17,000 times in a year according to new figures.
    Ofsted revealed 5,060 children were reported as having gone missing while living with foster carers in 2014-15, compared with 4,245 the year before.
    But the total number of instances of children going missing rose from 13,300 to 17,175.
    Ofsted said the numbers were “an issue of concern” but believed better recording may in part explain the rise.
    The South East and London reported the highest percentages of children going missing, 6% and 5% respectively, which “may be linked to the disappearance of children thought to be trafficked into the UK and removed from foster care”.
    Kent County Council, one of the largest local authorities, reported the biggest number of instances of missing children, 792, in 2014-15.
    In England 155 children went missing from foster care for more than 28 days over the year, while 545 were missing for at least a week.
    A further 1,845 were missing from one to six days and 2,515 were missing for less than 24 hours.
  3. socialworkerliedIf 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………..

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

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

    “I believe that suspicion of parents and of families has become corrosive, and is distorting the values of our profession.
    For the last 20 plus years the number of investigations or assessments into families suspected of child abuse has climbed steadily upwards and now accounts for one in 20 families in England and Wales !!!
    recent analysis found that since the Children Act 1989 referrals have increased by 311%, from 160,000 per year to 657,800 per year, between 1991 and 2014.
    Assessments have increased by 302% over the same period, from 120,000 to 483,800, while the number of cases of ‘core abuse’ have fallen. The figures show that the ratio of referrals to registrations have fallen year on year from 24.1% to 7.3%
  4. Child protection dominates work

    These assessments will have been carried out mainly by social workers. For social workers in statutory children and family teams there is no doubt that ‘child protection’ dominates every aspect of their work. Despite there being no significant rise in the number of children who die as a result of parental abuse or neglect, risk of abuse is assumed to be high.
    What does this say about how social workers view parents and families? And, just as importantly, what must it tell us about how parents view contact with social services? I believe that the evidence is mounting of mutual distrust and fear
  5. “The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent.  That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that ….”
    Councillor Roy Perry, Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Children and Young People Board, said: “Councils work hard to ensure children are settled with Foster
    Foster care and adoptions have become a lucrative business. Whether it should be a business at all is another question.
    Click on the relevant link below to go straight to a particular company:
    Foster Care AssociatesFoster Care Associates logo
    Owned by: Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees through Ideapark Ltd
    Income from foster care in 2014**: £127.2m
    Payouts to owner in 2014: £7m
    Highest paid director salary and other benefits: £406,000
    Founded by carers Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees in 1994,  (FCA) has become the biggest foster care company in the UK, and even has branches in Finland, Australia and Canada. The  assures potential foster carers that it does not have any “shareholders or private equity interests to serve”, but this is only half right. Unlike many of its rivals it is not owned by a private equity firm. But it certainly does have shareholders – principally Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees, through a holding company called Ideapark Ltd.
    The latest accounts of Core Assets Group Ltd (Foster Care Associates is a trading name) show the company paid out £7m in dividends to Ideapark Ltd in 2014, and £11.6m the year before. Ideapark Ltd’s accounts show it only paid out £50,000 to Cockburn and Rees in 2014, but a whopping £9.2m the year before
    nationalfosteringagency
    ———- STOP PRESS !The agency above has been sold for £130+million!
    busad2014
    __£590/week per child to fosterers ! Nice work if you can get three at a time!
  6. page !

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

    Click on the relevant link below to go straight to a particular company:
    Foster Care Associates
    Owned by: Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees through Ideapark Ltd
    Income from foster care in 2014**: £127.2m
    Payouts to owner in 2014: £7m
    Highest paid director salary and other benefits: £406,000
    National Fostering Agency (includes the Foster Care Agency)
    Owned by: Stirling Square Capital Partners (previously Graphite Capital until April 2015)
    Income from foster care in 2014*: £94.5m
    Payouts to owners in 2014: £14.4m to Graphite Capital
    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £318,112
    .
    Acorn Care and Education (includes Fostering Solutions, Pathway Care Fostering and Heath Farm Fostering)
    Owned by: Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan
    Income from foster care in 2014*: £73.1m
    Payouts to owners: £13m accrued in 2014
    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £266,420
    back.
    Partnerships in Children’s Services (includes Orange Grove, ISP, Fosterplus and Clifford House)
    Owned by: Sovereign Capital
    Income from foster care in 2014*: £29.8m
    Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.9m
    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: not shown in accounts
    we have not heard back.
    Swiis Foster Care
    Owned by: Dev Dadral and family
    Income from foster care in 2014: £29.4m
    Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.5m (from the wider Swiis group, see below)
    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £169,000
    Capstone Foster Care
    Owned by: Different individuals and companies (see below)
    Income from foster care in 2015: £21.1m
    Payouts to owners in 2015: £406,000
    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £185,000
    Compass Fostering (includes The Fostering Partnership, Eden Foster Care and Seafields Fostering)
    Owned by: August Equity
    Income from foster care in 2015: £25.9m
    Payouts to owners in 2015: £3.1m accrued
    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £131,000
    caretech
    Owners: shares are publicly-listed – Farouq and Haroon Sheikh biggest shareholders with 20%
    Income from foster care in 2014: £12m
    Payouts to owners in 2014: £240,000 in 2014
    Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £324,000

Foster carers ‘poached with golden hellos’

  • 5 August 2016












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

Large private foster agencies are offering cash incentives to recruit foster carers working for English local authorities – and then charging more for the service, councils say.
Some agencies pay “golden hellos” of around £3,000, but then charge councils more to care for the same child.
The Association of Directors of Children’s Services says the practice is immoral and should be banned.
Foster agencies question the way in which councils cost their own services.
The National Association of Foster Providers also says transfers of foster carers to agencies from local authority employment may happen for reasons to do with the needs of the child.

In-house council provision v private provision

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

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

Adoption target met

by Hammersmith and Fulham Press Office 10/03/2008
101 children adopted in the last three years
More than 100 children have been adopted in the borough during the last three years, after the Council met a target from central Government target that many experts thought would be unachievable.
The Government target, known as a Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA), challenged the Council to successfully achieve 101 adoptions or secure placements during the last three year period in return for £500,000 of funding.
At the time, the Council felt that the bar was set too high, as in the previous three year period only 71 children had been adopted – a figure that was then considered to be very high.
However, H&F’s adoption team swung into action and pulled out all of the stops in order to meet the target.

Local authorities to have scorecards for adoption – BBC News 

Mar 14, 2012 – Local authorities in England are to be issued scorecards, under new … on reforms to social work practice, the courts and the National Adoption

Adoption scorecards and thresholds published














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

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












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

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

Police forces facing dozens of new performance targets

  • 19 September 2013
  • From the section UK
  •   comments












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

Police forces in England and Wales have been set 178 performance targets by police and crime commissioners, despite a Home Office vow to cut red tape.
  1.  nspcc
Ministry of justice :- Official Judicial statistics
In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused. What chance did those parents have as (to quote L.J.Thorpe) “parents are so prejudiced in proceedings” ??
NSPCC figures above show that the “baby P factor” is a myth ! Children subject to a child protection plan were over a 5year period as follows:-  Physical abuse+sexual abuse 2009=6400 but 2013=6700 an increase of only4.6% but emotional abuse 2009=9100 and 2013=13640 an increase of 49.8% !! More than double the numbers of physical and sexual abuse combined ! This goes to show that the “SS” have not increased numbers because of baby p and fears of physical or sexual abuse but have nearly doubled those they claim to have been emotionally abused because nobody can properly defend themselves against such an accusation. EASY MEAT………….
OPEN JUSTICE
“Open up the courts “they shout ! Let the public in……. But of course members of the public are unlikely to bother to go.That is NOT the real issue……..
No the real issue is the gagging of parents preventing them from crying to the rooftops when their children are taken identifying themselves and their kids if they wish to do so ,and also the refusal to allow friends ,grandparents and other relatives in the court if the parents wish them to be there.
Freedom of speech is a joke where family courts are concerned and so is justice that cannot be seen to be done even by children’s grandparents or the mother’s new Partner  on the laughable pretext that a newborn baby’s privacy has been breached !
If we believe in free speech and open justice we should allow parents to speak freely to the public naming themselves and their children, and also allow them to invite relatives and friends into court for moral support.

___________

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Above is a link to a video of two pregnant mums I helped escape to France where the authorities welcomed them !
READ ALOUD IN COURT THESE WISE STATEMENTS BY  VERY SENIOR JUDGES !
1:-Note the observation of Supreme Court Judge Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC (para 143):“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs
.2:-Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B: ‘
. Maggie Mellon who is the Deputy Chair of the British Association of Social Workers  said:
“The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent.  That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that?”
Sir james Munby (President of the family courts) also said at the Family Justice Council debate  “The only thing I am confident about is that adoption as we will understand it and practise it in 30 years’ time will bear very little relation to adoption as we practise it today. ”
Also at a speech made to the Society of Editors Sir James stated ..”.with the state’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are  typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in  any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make. When a family judge makes an adoption order in relation to a twenty‐year old mother’s baby, the mother will have to live with the consequences of that decision for what may be upwards of 60 or even 70 years, and the baby for what may be upwards of 80 or even 90 years. We must be vigilant to guard against the risks.”
3:-MR JUSTICE MOSTYN said”PARA 35. The proposition of the merits of adoption is advanced almost as a truism but if it is a truism it is interesting to speculate why only three out of 28 European Union countries allow forced or non-consensual adoption. One might ask: why are we so out of step with the rest of Europe? One might have thought if it was obvious that forced adoption was the gold standard the rest of Europe would have hastened to have adopted it. The relevance of this aspect of the case is surely obvious.”
  1. Link – http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/3388.htm
4:-I also  remind readers of the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions) [2007] 1 FLR 2050:“Many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or ‘model’ them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.”
5:-Lord Templeman inRe KD 1988:
The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature

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

I believe that suspicion of parents and of families has become corrosive, and is distorting the values of our profession.
For the last 20 plus years the number of investigations or assessments into families suspected of child abuse has climbed steadily upwards and now accounts for one in 20 families in England and Wales
recent analysis found that since the Children Act 1989 referrals have increased by 311%, from 160,000 per year to 657,800 per year, between 1991 and 2014.
Assessments have increased by 302% over the same period, from 120,000 to 483,800, while the number of cases of ‘core abuse’ have fallen. The figures show that the ratio of referrals to registrations have fallen year on year from 24.1% to 7.3%.

Child protection dominates work

These assessments will have been carried out mainly by social workers. For social workers in statutory children and family teams there is no doubt that ‘child protection’ dominates every aspect of their work. Despite there being no significant rise in the number of children who die as a result of parental abuse or neglect, risk of abuse is assumed to be high.
What does this say about how social workers view parents and families? And, just as importantly, what must it tell us about how parents view contact with social services? I believe that the evidence is mounting of mutual distrust and fear.
  1. WHAT OTHER JUDGES SAY :-
    1: Lord Justice Thorpe said There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.
    2: Lord Justice Wall (the former Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.
    3: In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West
The podcast and transcript from the Debate that was held on 24 November is now on the Family Justice Council website. Please see the link below.

TEN  QUESTIONS TO ASK FAMILY COURT JUDGES;

1: – Great Britain is the only country in the world where substantial numbers of pregnant women seek asylum in other countries to have their babies safe from UK social services and forced adoption. Yes British mothers are fleeing the country in ever increasing numbers to avoid the adoption of their unborn babies babies.Surely this shows something is very badly wrong?

2 :- Adoption without consent is a last resort when nothing else will do say the legal guidelines but this cannot be true ,since many other countries such as France manage to find other” resorts “and thus never need to use this so called last resort, so why cannot the UK adopt the same remedies as the French for example?

3:-The President of the family Courts in Re J(a child) said that since the abolition of capital punishment the most drastic decision any judge could make was to take a child from its parents.If a sane mother with no criminal record has her baby removed surely she is punished without breaking any laws .Surely punishment without crime is as illogical as it is wrong?

4:-Many babies and young children are taken at birth for eventual adoption from mothers diagnosed with “borderline personalities” and similar mental failings by court appointed experts;Unlike defendants in criminal courts parents in family courts are not allowed to get a second opinion  from a private medical source to call as their witness without permission from the judge;Surely that is a violation of Article 6(Human rights Act) giving persons appearing in  court the right to call witnesses in determination of their civil rights?

5:-Research has shown that Open Adoptions have better results for children than the Closed adoptions used in the UK that break all contact with birth families;If parents were promised at least one annual contact by court order (birthdays or Xmas perhaps?) thus avoiding the heartbreak of no contact at all (letter box being remote and seldom continued) many parents would not go through the agony of contested hearings so would not this be a good thing?

6:- Many babies are taken at birth for “risk of emotional abuse” .Something unique in Europe and impossible for parents to defend against court experts who are usually judged more likely on probabilities to be correct than a distraught mother.When adoption follows due to risks that may never happen( from an ex partner who was violent for example) surely these at least are cases where forced adoptions should simply not be allowed ?

7:-Article 10 (Human rights Act) reinforces our democratic right to free speech.Surely it is a gross violation of  to gag mothers whose children have been taken (for possible adoption) by preventing them under threat of jail from identifying themselves and their children when protesting to the media .Similarly is it not also a violation of Article 10 to gag both children in care and parents during “contact sessions” preventing them from speaking their own language (if of foreign extraction), reporting abuse or injuries received in care,discussing their cases, whispering ,or discussing adoptions,,under threat that contact will be immediately stopped if parents or children break these rules?

8-:In many cases parents who have committed no crimes are forbidden by the family courts to contact their own children directly or even indirectly by email etc.Surely that must be flagrant violation of Article 10 allowing free association when parents are as a consequence  jailed for breaching the order by sending a birthday card or waving at their own children in the street?

9:- Social workers and judges in family courts continually emphasise the need to keep the names of children whose cases are before the court confidential  to protect the children’s  privacy.Parents or others who breach that secrecy are jailed. There is however one exception;namely the “adoption industry” .When the family courts decide that forced adoption is the solution for children all thoughts of privacy go out of the window.Children with first names ,photographs and character descriptions are advertised like pedigree dogs for potential adoptive parents to select the children they want. Surely these double standards are utterly hypocritical?

10:-They say money makes the world go round and this certainly seems true of the fostering and adoption industry. A poster on a bus in Suffolk offers £590/week per child to anyone willing to Foster .Very nice work if you foster 3 or more children  andp to £1000/week if a child has “special needs . Special schools rake in£3000 to£4000 per week per child ,around 5 times the fees at Eton ! Agencies do best of all getting £27,000 for each successful adoption arranged . One of many agencies is The National fostering and adoption agency  founded by two social workers about 15 years ago and sold out last year for £130million+ ! Nice work if you can get it Thousands of others of course just make a good living out of the misery of others  and rigorously defend the system on which they depend .Birds of a Feather flock together with no need for conspiracy but surely we should put and end to this money racket that causes so much unhappiness to the children robbed of the parents they love and the mothers robbed for life of their newborn babies?

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

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

The case was, he said,
an object lesson in, almost textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.
In addressing these failings, Munby P identified “three fundamentally important points”.
The first point, vital for practitioners on the ground, is that findings of fact must be based on evidence, not suspicion and speculation. As the judge observed, material in local authority files is often second or third-hand hearsay. Although hearsay is admissible in care proceedings, if challenged, a local authority will have to establish its accuracy.
In this case, the original social worker’s “concerns” about the father were repeated and adopted by other practitioners (including the children’s guardian), without further enquiry. When the case reached court, that enquiry revealed what Sir James described witheringly as
a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations.
Stripped of suspicion, speculation and hyperbole, the majority of the factual case collapsed and was reduced to familiar assertions that the parent “lacks honesty with professionals” or “minimises matters of importance”.
The second fundamental point is that a successful application for a care order must link the facts relied on to the threshold test, i.e., why do the facts asserted lead to the conclusion that the child is at risk of suffering significant harm?
In this case, the local authority thus had to show how the fact that the father had had sex with an underage girl of 13 when he was aged 17, affected his ability to care for his baby son some six years later. How did the social worker’s complaint that he “failed to acknowledge the immoral nature of the offences committed” support the assessment that his child was at risk of neglect?
The judge was equally unimpressed by the local authority’s “concern” about the father’s involvement with the English Defence League (EDL) – referred to in the social worker’s assessment as “a barbaric protestor group”. The fact (“if fact it be”) that the father was a member of the EDL (“probably only for a short time”) was, he said,
neither here nor there, whatever one may think of its beliefs or policies.
The social worker’s repeated reference to the “immoral aspects of the father’s behaviour”, prompted the judge’s third fundamental point that, in the “wise and powerful words” of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria [2007] 1 FLR 2050:
society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent…some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.
In the same vein, as Baroness Hale explained in the celebrated Supreme Court decision In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33:
We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the state does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical and mental illnesses or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.
In this case, local authority concerns also included an alleged “history of drug abuse”. Once probed, the evidence established the father “may have taken cannabis on occasions”. However Sir James observed,
the reality is that many parents smoke cannabis on occasions without their children coming to harm… [P]arental abuse of alcohol or drugs of itself and without more is no basis for taking children into care.
On the positive side, the father was recognised to love the child, to be capable of meeting his day-to-day needs and to have shown commitment in supervised contact. Taking account of the “greatly weakened” local authority case and “surveying the wide canvass”, the judge concluded
The judge says “I can accept that the father may not be the best of parents, he may be less than a suitable role model, but that is not enough to justify a care order, let alone adoption.”
It boils down to three important principles as elaborated in the case above by Sir James Munby (President of the family courts) and summarised by myself

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

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

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

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

 

TWELVE REFORMS THAT WOULD END THE INJUSTICES:-

1:-NO child should be taken from law abiding citizens ;There should be no punishment without crime ! If a parent is charged with a serious crime the child should be removed but returned if a not guilty verdict is given by the jury..
2:- Forced adoption should be abolished. Definition:- Adoption that is forced on parents who oppose it in court asking to keep their children Most parents who love their children enough to go through months of gruelling court appearances would probably deserve to keep them.
3:- No gagging orders should be placed on parents who must be allowed to protest to the media using their own names when their children are taken .
4:-Parents should be permitted to have a limited number of friends and relatives to support them and to observe their processes in the family court;
5:- No restrictions should be placed on conversations between parents and children at contact and children should be free to report abuse by carers.Freedom of Speech is paramount:-
6:- Parents who have not committed crimes against children should never be forbidden to contact their children by email ,phone,or letter. I repeat that.children in care should no longer be gagged to stop them reportng to parents abuse in fostercare .They should never have their phones and laptops confiscated. They should be free to discuss whatever they like with parents during contact visits ,speaking their own language even if that language is not English !
7:- Parents who are suspected of having mental problems or learning difficulties but who deny having them should be able to consult their own experts and bring them to court with any other relevant witnesses they choose.
8:-Parents should be free to bring their own expert witnesses to testify concerning injuries that may or may not have been non accidental
9:- Children who cannot live with parents should be placed with relatives as the Children Act 1989 specifies. Too many grand parents and other close relatives are wrongly disqualified because they have a close Relationship with one of the parents,because they are “too old” at 55 or even less ,or because they are deemed to be unable to protect the child from a violent parent when eventually he/she comes out of jail!. These are lame excuses for taking children into care and splitting up brothers from sisters etc rather than keeping siblings together with family members
10:-Parents must be allowed to call their own children to court to testify for them especially if they are eager to do so.-As former minister for justice Simon Hughes said “children of age 10+ should be free to come to court IF THEY WISH TO TESTIFY on their parent’s behalf” The United Nations convention on children’s rights confirms all this.
11:- Family courts should pronounce all persons before them innocent of accusations and allegations unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.They should never judge any person to be at fault on the balance of probabilities (51%+)
12:-Domestic violence confined to shouting should not result in confiscation of children .Victims of partners who have actually been convicted of domestic violence should never be penalised by removal of their children as long as they have separated from the perpetrator and taken all possible measures to protect their children from future violence by that person
12 QUESTIONS THAT YOU CAN PUT TO YOUR LOCAL AUTHORITY !
1 :- Can it ever be right to take thousands of babies at birth  from sane law abiding mothers for « risk of emotional abuse” ? If so when?
2:-Research shows that Open Adoption works better than Closed so why do British Family Courts never permit Open adoptions that could allow children at least some contact with birth parents?
3:- Why are law abiding citizens in UK deprived of their children for risk of things that may never happen?Surely babies should only be taken from those who break the laws not those who keep them?
4:- ,Only from UK do hundreds of pregnant mothers flee to Ireland,France,Spain,and N.Cyprus etc to give birth in safety from UK Social Services ;Surely this mass flight of pregnant mothers that happens nowhere else in the world indicates that something is badly wrong?
5:- When UK mothers do flee to other countries  to give birth or to avoid UK Court proceedings for care orders on their children; why do Social Services pursue them and take proceedings in those other countries to retrieve the children for care in UK instead of leaving the foreign local social services  in Ireland, France etc to deal with the situation?
6:-When children are taken into care in UK their lap tops and mobile phones are usually immediately confiscated so that they cannot phone or email family or friends unlike murderers in prison who can do both.How can this limitation on childrens freedom to communicate be right?
7:-When children in care see their parents at contact centres they and their parents are forbidden (if foreign) to speak their own language, to cry,to discuss their case,to report abuse in care ,or to discuss returning home.;unlike murderers in prison who can discuss anything they like with their visitors. How can crushing freedom of speech be right?
8:- Why do squads of 5 or 6  uniformed police arrive so frequently to take screaming frightened children from parents at around 7am from their beds and cart them off to isolation from family and friends?
9:- The number of children taken from parents for physical or sexual abuse has dropped whilst the numbers taken for undefined emotional abuse has nearly doubled in the last five years as a percentage of the whole (judicial statistics).Could that be because children sexually or physically abused make poor adoption material?
10:-Can it be right that social workers who all have adoption scorecards are named and shamed within their own organisations if they do not achieve adoption targets? Surely this gives them an incentive to recommend forced adoptions when other solutions are possible and more desirable?
11: Innocent until proved guilty” has been replaced in the UK family courts by “guilty if their guilt (smacking or injuring their child etc) is more probable (51%) than their innocence”; and as judges usually consider the allegations of social workers to be probably more reliable than the denials of parents the result is that parents once accused are usually found to have neglected or abused their own children.-Surely “innocent until proven guilty” is a fairer standard of proof?
12:-There are many cases in the UK where law abiding parents have been imprisoned for breaching “no contact orders” made by the family courts by waving at their children in the street, sending a birthday card, speaking to them at a chance meeting and even for posting “happy 21st birthday” on the internet.(yes 21st !).Surely such orders should be made illegal when such parents have never been convicted of harming their children?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact with children in care.

See how they break the law by censoring what a mother can say to a 12 year old child! Most parents have to sign something similar or contact is stopped !
Supervised contact
Supervised contact will take place three times a week. Currently there are two regular sessions on Tuesdays and Fridays, between 3;30 and 4;45pmLukes Social Worker will make arrangements on a weekly basis in regards to the third supervised session until a contact supervisor can be allocated.
Contact between Luke and his mum wll be supervised by a contact supervisor at all times. The contact sessions will take place at the West Area Duty and Family Support Teams offices.
Telephone contact is to take place only under Lukes foster carers supervision.Telephone contact is to only last five minutes and is to be initiated by Luke only.
Ms Marques is expected to end the telephone conversation herself in an appropriate way once the five minutes have lapsed.
Luke will be transported from school and to the foster placement by a professional appointed by the West Area Duty and Family Support Team.
Ms Marques is expected to support Luke while he is staying with his foster carer.
She is not to encourage Luke to have any other form of contact with her apart from what has been officially agreed with the Local Authority. The Local Authority is worried that ms Marques has limited insight into how her functioning impacts upon Luke and that there is a risk that Lukes placement will be de-stabilised and Luke experience further emotional harm as a result of this.
Ms Marques is strongly advised ; to engage with Luke in a child centered positive way during contact. If she finds this difficult she is encouraged to request support/advice from the contact supervisor.
The contact supervisor will from now on make activities available during contact. Ms Marques is advised to engage with these activities and encourage Luke to do so aswell.
Ms Marques is encouraged to bring board games with her etc that she and Luke might enjoy playing during contact.
Ms Marques should not discuss issues relating to the ongoing court proceedings. If in any case Luke brings up the subject himself she is to encourage him to discuss these issues with his social worker and/or guardian.
Ms Marques should not make reference to herself and her current situation if this will result in Luke feeling worried/guilty about ” mum being on her own”.
Ms Marques is to make reference to Lukes father and paternal side of the family in a positive way at all times.
Ms Marques is expected to make reference to all professionals involved with Luke in a positive way.She is to encourage Luke to be open and trusting of these professionals.
If Ms Marques feels anxious/unwell she is expected to seek help from her GP and /or her mental health key-worker. Lukes social worker is to be notified of this as soon as that is possible. If in any case contact is to be affected, then Ms Marques is expected to make contact with Lukes social worker immediately.
Ms M is expected to keep to all the points made in this written agreement.
If Ms Marques fails to keep to any of the expectations as set out by this written agreement; it is made clear that the contact supervisor has been instructed that contact is to be stopped, and Ms Marques will be asked to leave.
The Local Authority will also review the contact arrangements and amend them as necessary to promote and ensure Lukes welfare and safety.
This is not a legally binding document and all relevant parties are encouraged to seek legal advise if they wish to do so.
Any changes to contact will take place only once an updated written agreement has been drafted and signed by all relevant parties.
———–

OUR OBJECTIVES

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

FORCED ADOPTION

1:- Forced adoption is the removal of a child from its parents without their consent and usually against their will.Systematic forced adoption pursued as a government priority is unique to the UK. EU countries manage without it therefore it is not as claimed a “last resort”
2:-The result is that the parents lose all contact with the child usually for the rest of its life and never know if it is alive or dead.
3:- This can happen to parents who have never been convicted of any crime because they are thought to pose a risk to a child in the future
4:-Mothers frequently have their babies removed at birth for “risk of emotional abuse” .A prediction difficult for anyone to disprove.
5:- This also happens to citizens of the EU when visiting the UK so that their children are forcibly adopted by persons speaking a different language and living a completely different culture and a different religion even when these parents have committed no criminal offence.
6:- This also happens to UK citizens visiting other EU countries where they give birth but are subsequently pursued by the British authorities who make care orders after the departure and persuade the foreign court to allow them to take the baby to the UK for forced adoption .
7:- Forced adoption violates the human rights act article 8 to a private family life undisturbed by public authority and also threatens the basic EU principle of “freedom of movement “ If EU visitors to UK who have committed no crimes risk having their children forcibly adopted.

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

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

Do not be bluffed by social workers or even your own useless solicitors! If they say that you are not allowed by law to show your documents to anybody else tell them they are years out of date!Section 62 ,(para 251 explanatory notes), of the children Act 2004 allows you to show your documents and discuss your case in detail including names with as many individuals as you like! You are however still forbidden to reveal to the press,the public or sections of the public any information that might help identify the children concerned.Tell family ,friends,advisers, and any other individuals anything you like no matter what bossy social workers and expensive lawyers might tell you !!
You can access the actual texts of the new rules as passed by parliament as follows;-
Statutory Instruments
See also Section 62: Publication of material relating to legal proceedings
The Children Act 2004 para 251.     Section 62(1) amends section 97 of the Children Act 1989 to make clear that the publication of material from family proceedings which is intended, or likely, to identify any child as being involved in such proceedings (or the address or school of such a child) is only prohibited in relation to publication of information to the public or any section of the public. This section will make the effect of section 97 less prohibitive by allowing disclosure of such information in certain circumstances. In effect, this means that passing on information identifying, or likely to identify, a child (his school or his address) as being involved in court proceedings to an individual or a number of individuals would not generally be a criminal offence .
I want every parent, aunt, uncle, grandparent, and whoever else to email every local and national newspaper to let them know what is going on in the UK family court and how the social services and Cafcass are conducting themselves.
To do this, all you need to do is use The UK Newspaper Megaphonewhere you can mass email the media and get them to report of what is happening in the family courts
Abusive parents rarely go to court to fight for the return of their children
Surely you may say there are abusive parents so why take their side? The answer is two fold :- Firstly most abusive parents do not go to court and fight to get their children back They stay well away from courts and judges !.Secondly I am not a judge ,I just help and advise any parent who asks me in the same way as a criminal lawyer will defend clients without judging whether they are guily or innocent.
Practice Direction: Committal for Contempt of Court – Open Court
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has today issued a Practice Direction governing the process of hearings for committal to prison, including suspended committal, for contempt of court (link below and copy in body of email). This Direction must be complied with and replaces 2013 guidance which was aimed at the Family Court and Court of Protection, extending it to all civil, family and criminal proceedings. The Directions says: ‘Open justice is a fundamental principle. The general rule is that hearings are carried out in, and judgments and orders are made in, public. This rule applies to all hearings, whether on application or otherwise, for committal for contempt irrespective of the court in which they are heard or of the proceedings in which they arise.’ It requires in all cases where an individual is found to have committed a contempt of court and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or a suspended term of imprisonment that the court making the order must, sitting in public, set out the following: the name of the person; the nature of the sentence; and, in general terms, the nature of the contempt. It also requires these details and a written judgment to be provided to the press and the Judicial Office website. It does so in order to ensure that no one is committed prison without these details being made public. This Direction is made by the Lord Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, following consultation with the Master of the Rolls, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, President of the Family Division and of the Court of Protection, and Chancellor of the High Court.
WHO AM I ?  You may well ask…..
Who are you dealing with? and  What do I do? You may wish to know……..
I am not a solicitor or barrister but I do have a law degree from Oxford University.I  am a business man owning and running two language teaching companies :- http://www.hli.co.uk   and http://www.regencyschool.com (See for yourself!)
I was born in London in 1932,I now live in Monaco, and have been happily married to my second wife( who is french) since 1971 ,I have 7 children and 11 grandchildren .I still ski,(badly!) and work harder now than when I was 20!
Unlike most who fight them,I and my family have NEVER been troubled personally by UK social services even when we lived in Kent .Eventually ,we left UK to live and work in Monaco in 1984.However I always detested the arrogant brutality that UK social services showed to those least able to defend themselves.
It all began in 1962. I was on Kent County Council and was asked for help by a mother whose son had, she said had been wrongly taken from her by social workers and put in a very expensive private school (owned by a senior Kent Councillor)where he was paid to sleep with teachers !The authorities tried to “hush the matter up” but after a widely publicised court hearing the boy was  successfuly returned home and I was asked by other parents to deal with similar problems .I therefore applied in the courts for discharge of care orders against my own council for many such parents and never lost a case.
Unfortunately I spent so much time on these cases that my language school deteriorated and my first marriage broke up when my first wife departed leaving me with two young children and a fading business to take care of  ! I then stopped helping parents and concentrated on my business and my second marriage . Both proved successful ! (Happily married since 1971 with Danielle and 5 children together!)
It was in 2003 that the Meadows cot death scandals and adoptions without parental consent exploded into the news and I wrote to the Daily Mail saying things seemed worse in 2003 than they were in the 60s when I was helping parents. I got nearly 50 letters from desperate parents.The law had changed so that I could no longer speak for parents in court,there was also forced adoption, court secrecy,and gagging orders, so I set up my site  http://www.forced-adoption.com and have been dealing with more than 1000 cases per year ever since ! Ihave  financially assisted 50 or 60  pregnant women to escape legally to Ireland France and other places to avoid losing their babies at birth to forced adoption.
————–
Click on the link below to watch Ian Josephs speaking at the Children Screaming To Be Heard conference in London July 2014
Remember also that if the “SS” take your child without a court order and without your consent they are acting illegally and can be punished !
ILLEGAL CHILD REMOVAL
In R (on the application of G) v Nottingham City Council [2008] EWHC 400 (Admin) Munby J considered removal of a child from a mother without either court order or consent under s.20 of the CA 1989.  In finding that removal to be unlawful the Court relied on Article 8 of the HRA and concluded that the interference with the family life was not justifiable under Article 8(2) as a result
Yes, the punishment dealt out to parents by family courts is far more severe than anything the criminal courts can do ;yet the evidence needed is only the “balance of probabilities”(51+%) instead of “beyond reasonable doubt” .This must be very wrong !
Speech by Sir James Munby (president of the family courts) to the Society of editors:- “I have said this many times in the past but it must never be forgotten that, with the state’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make. When a family judge makes an adoption order in relation to a twenty-year old mother’s baby, the mother will have to live with the consequences of that decision for what may be upwards of 60 or even 70 years, and the baby for what may be upwards of 80 or even 90 years. We must be vigilant to guard against the risk”

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

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

1:- Domestic Violence  even when restricted to shouting and even when the violent parent separated years agoThe theory is that if children see their parents argue and (God forbid!) shout at each other they will suffer significant EMOTIONAL ABUSE and should be taken away to the illusory safety of the extremely dangerous State care system! .If this rule was applied in Italy there would be no parents left with children at all !Even in the UK ,show me a couple who have been together 3 years or more who claim they never quarrel or shout at each other and I will show you two liars !
2:- Borderline personality disorder or narcissistic traits ! Usually diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist who  habitually gives evidence to the family courts in favour of social services and with few if any private patients.Parents are routinely refused a second opinion and if they get a highly favourable report from a top expert  paying privately it is usually ignored even when it is more up to date .
3:- Hostility and refusal to engage or work with professionals.It is however difficult to work with persons who tell you their intention is to take your newborn baby or young children and give them to strangers for adoption !
4:-A parent who was abused in childhood or who was brought up “in care”  is often deemed to be an unfit parent because of the danger that they had no parents in care and learned nothing of parenthood or that they would in turn repeat the abuse they had suffered as a child by abusing their own children !
5:- A father (and sometimes a mother) with a  criminal record of violence that was against other adults but never against their partner or their children is still judged too much of a danger to care for children even if the offences are several years old;
6:- An untidy house,children who stay up late, or a chaotic lifestyle that does not fit in with the way our politically correct social workers think we should live !
7:-Absences from school or reports from school that a child was heard reporting ill treatment to another child.Such cases are of course worth investigating but never warrant the immediate removal of the child by social services as happens only too often.A child returning from school with a bruise, or a child  accidentally breaking or fracturing a limb is nearly always held to be the victim of an “unexplained” injury,and that soon translates into a non accidental injury for which parents are blamed and the child removed into “state care”( where abuse is commonplace) even when there is no previous pattern of bruises or injuries.
8:-Anonymous tip offs now descibed as “referrals reporting physical or sexual abuse of a child with no further evidence,” that often result in the immediate removal of a child often based purely on hearsay and gossip.
9:- Parents who “put their own needs before those of their children” .A “mantra” that is repeated in a monotone by social workers when they can think of no other criticism of parents to make .A completely meaningless phrase that gives a false sense of superiority to the person making it when really it is just their unsubstantiated opinion.
10:- And perhaps worst of all…… Babies are removed at birth for “RISK OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE”;Yes you read correctly,  Social workers actually do claim to predict the future and for parents it is always a bleak one  when the “SS” consult their tea-leaves or their” crystal balls” ! Gypsies can be quite accurate through generations of practice when they predict your future but social workers and judges?? UGH !Mothers suffer the worst possible punishment inflicted in the UK since hangings were abolished.(That is what the President of the family courts Sir James Munby said in a recent case!)

BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND in Re B (a child) House of Lords.
My Lords,
  1. Taking a child away from her family is a momentous step, not only for her, but for her whole family, and for the local authority which does so. In a totalitarian society, uniformity and conformity are valued. Hence the totalitarian state tries to separate the child from her family and mould her to its own design. Families in all their subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and individuality. In a free and democratic society we value diversity and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in all the modern human rights instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights (art 8), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art 23) and throughout the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Justice McReynolds famously said in Pierce v Society of Sisters 268 US 510 (1925), at 535, “The child is not the mere creature of the State”
    CHILDREN’S WISHES MUST BE HEARD
Simon Hughes former Minister for Justice recently said:
I therefore want to announce that it is the intention of the Ministry of Justice, and therefore the government, that we move as soon as is practical to apply in all our family justice proceedings in England and Wales where children and young people are concerned the policy that it will be the normal practice, the norm, that, from the age of 10, children and young people involved in public or private law family justice proceedings before the courts will have access to the judge, in an appropriate way which reflects their feelings and wishes to make clear their views as to what is the best resolution of the family dispute in their interest. Children and young people of 10 and over will therefore be given the chance to make clear their views in person or if preferred in another way. We will also work with the mediation sector to arrive at a position where children and young people of 10 years old and over have appropriate access to mediators too in cases which affect them.
Why 10? It seems to me wrong that a 10 year old in England and Wales is deemed old enough to be criminally responsible yet has no automatic voice in family proceedings in which decisions are being made about them. Children and young people should be involved and be seen to be involved. And if a child younger than 10 years is able to express themselves and wishes to do so then they too should have that opportunity. Though of course we must also recognise that where a child or young person is too vulnerable and needs their views to be represented by others, this also should be the case.
CHILDREN MISSING FROM CARE
The All Party Parliamentary Group for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the All Party Parliamentary Group for Looked after Children and Care Leavers set up an inquiry in response to recent concerns about the care and support that these groups of children currently receive.
The inquiry examined the issues around children who go missing from care and how they can be better protected.
The report outlines why children in care are at risk, finding:
  • there are just over 65,000 children in care in England. Most live in foster care, and 7% live in one of England’s 1,810 children’s homes
  • many of these children have had a difficult start in life, so are vulnerable and easy prey for exploitative adults
  • children in homes are likely to be older, more vulnerable and are more likely to have complex needs
  • an estimated 10,000 children go missing from care every year, many of whom are at risk of being physically or sexually abused or exploited.
Remember also that since April 2014 the new section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, makes provision for applications for contact AFTER an adoption order has been made.
—– Original Message —– From: “Kathryn Brown” <katybrown198528@gmail.com> To: “Ian Josephs” <ian@monaco.mc> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 11:56 AM Subject: Baby > Hi Ian > > I wanted you to be the first to know: > We pick up our baby today!
Thank you so much Ian. Without your support we would have lost her forever. Am so so grateful to you, truly
Katy
Now what could possibly bother me about social services and the family court system??
Lord Justice Thorpe said on Appeal “I am completely aghast at this case.There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing,because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.Once you have lost a child it is very difficult to get a child back.” The hearing above lasted only 15 minutes after a doctor “expressed the opinion” that bruising in the ear of one of the three children looked as though it was caused by pinching .The parents were not allowed to give any evidence!Their three children had all been forcibly removed until they were ordered to be returned by Lord Justice Thorpe on appeal.
Here is a list of the main defects !
1:-Forced adoption
2:-Taking children into care for future risk
3:-Gagging parents and jailing them if they protest in public.
4-:Gagging children by retricting conversation with parents at contact to nothing controversial, confiscating mobile phones,computers,and preventing access to any post office.
5:-Refusing parents leave to call witnesses
6:-Choosing experts and refusing parents any say in who is chosen or what questions are asked,with no second opinion allowed.
7 :-Branding parents as child abusers on the balance of probabilities that are often founded on mere unproved allegations ,pure gossip or other hearsay .
8:-Lawyers who advise clients to” go along” with social services even when adoptions are planned
9:-Punishing parents and children by separating them even when no crimes have been committed.
10:-Refusing entry to the court to grandparents,step-parents,and close relatives of the parents.
11:-Children taken from parents for alleged “emotional abuse” or risk of it.
12:-Telling wives to split from their husbands(and vice versa) otherwise they will lose their children(when they intend to take the kids anyway).
13:- One bruise,burn,or fracture,the parents are blamed, and the child is taken away;”one strike and you’re out!).If however children complain about sexual abuse and /or severe bruising in fostercare they are disbelieved(despite photos) and ignored as are their parents. A very fair” baker’sdozen” I reckon !
? Grimsby Police Abduct A 10 year Old Girl – YouTube There comes a time  like the above when soldiers,policemen,and the like have a duty to refuse to obey an order that is against human rights or is a crime against humanity….
My child was taken by three armed police and a social worker. They pulled this terrified child (who was  screaming) from my body and was carried  out by the arms. They held my neighbour in the basement of our house at gunpoint.  I did not know where this child was for five days but that this frightened youngster neither ate nor slept. My poor child tried to run away when we were in a foreign country and the foster carers refused to ever foster again as they were so distressed.   My darling child was shaking like a leaf and kept  writing letters begging me to return to me which were given to me,  one million pounds in lawyers later and this child is with a paedophile and has not been seen by me for three years. My child disclosed to a psychologist, the police, a GP and myself and my father. There was medical evidence all ignored.  My child showed foster carers a very sore bottom after seeing the father but was told adoption would result  if he didn’t go and live with father.
The police bruised both arms when they carried out my poor child who threatened suicide in foster care but still they forced this childto give up both mummy and home, move to UK and never see any  friends or family again. This child  is told he cannot call me mum and that a stranger is now the mother , has no contact with anyone  known before other than four short calls a year on speaker phone to me.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD AND JUDGES LIKE HON MRS X…….! Why are they punishing us and our children. All because we dared to report a crime, try to safeguard our children and love them. For this we are jailed, tortured by the system and watch our children being destroyed whilst powerless to help them.
There is constant talk of change but our children are with paedophiles for their childhood! Nothing is changing. Another day of abuse because they dared to disclose. My child says on the abe who is going to make this stop? The police woman says we can’t make anything stop. Who else does he ask?
On 6 Apr 2014, at 13:35, Vicky Haigh <vhaigh@live.com> wrote:
my daughter was snatched like this too but by social workers and she cried and cried saying “my mummy’s coming soon and we are going to have tea together”. e. A big black man and strange woman took her and reported that she cried the whole 23 miles to her paternal grandmother’s house where she cried all weekend then the next time I saw her she had mouth ulcers and cold sores all over her mouth.
It is barbaric this treatment. She was told if she agreed to see daddy she would see mummy more. The rest is history as I haven’t seen her for 3 and a half years.
I hate theses people and hope that they rot in hell.
They have ruined my life and took a little girl’s mummy away from an innocent child
Christopher Booker writes in the Sunday Telegraph 15/6/2014.
Many people will have been amazed by the story of Maureen Danby, the 72-year old grandmother given a three month prison sentence after police produced CCTV footage showing her and her 18-year old granddaughter running to embrace each other in a pub car park. The granny, who lives in Orkney, had travelled down to Derby to meet her beloved granddaughter, in defiance of a court order which since 2007 has only allowed them to have “supervised contact” by telephone once a month.  The girl, said to have a mental age of only nine, is so unhappy in “care” that according to Mrs Danby she has run away 175 times. She was forbidden to see her father again after he was jailed for roughly restraining her from “running into a busy road when she was having a temper tantrum”. He has twice more since been in prison, once for waving at his daughter when he saw her in a passing taxi on her way to school.  Martin Cardinal, the Court of Protection judge who sentenced Mrs Danby, said “I am sure this grandmother needs restraint”. It was Judge Carcinal who last year made news when it was revealed that he had secretly jailed Wanda Maddocks for removing her 80-year old father from a care home in which he had been put by social workers, where he was so ill-treated there that she feared for his life.  Of all the disturbing features of our “care” system, one of the most chilling is the draconian restrictions it imposes on contact between children and loving parents or grandparents who have not harmed them in any way, If they are allowed to meet at all, it is usually in a grim council “contact centre”, where every word is noted by a “contact supervisior”, watching for any breach of the rules which can stop the “contact” dead. ` I have several of the contracts family members must sign, before being allowed these”contact sessions”. One is 23 clauses long. These severely limit or forbid any show of affection by either side. Conversation must be limited only to “everyday matters”, such as how the children are doing at school. Virtually nothing the bewildered children want to discuss is allowed. Totally prohibited is any reference to why they are in “care”, what is to happen to them or how they are being treated (in one case, where a distressed 11-year old girl told her parents that she was being sexually  abused by a member of the foster carer’s family, they never saw her again). No reference can be made to the courts, social workers or any other “professional” involved in the case. Particularly forbidden is any “whispering”. Where foreign children are in care, they and their parents are forbidden to use the language they speak at home, When a Lithuianian grandfather recently flew to London to see his grandson, he was merely allowed one five-minute exchange on Skype, using the only three words of English he knew, “I love you”. Where no contact is allowed at all, the punishments for breaching this can be astonishingly severe. I have half a dozen cases where mothers were jailed simply for waving at their children when seeing them by chance in the street. I recently reported on the mother, still in prison after her desperately unhappy 13-year old daughter had run away from a care home where she was being physically ill-treated, The mother rang the police, but was careful to have no direct contact with her daughter, until the police begged to her to go in to calm the girl down in her brother’s house, where she was screaming and sobbing. For this the social workers persuaded a judge to jail her for six months. But the real mystery about this is where the courts and social workers think they have the legal authority to act in this utterly calllous and inhuman way, If any lawyer can tell me precisely which law allows them thus to trample on one of the deepest natural instincts human beings know, I would be very grateful.
See also a landmark case where both parents had bad criminal records and previous domestic violence but still recovered their baby from care !
I can only repeat the simple solution needed to reform our so called “child protection” system ………… NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME, end punishment without crime, finish punishment without crime,abolish punishment without crime,scrap punishment without crime,see that no parents are punished by child removal if they have not broken the law protecting children …………. Do away with “PUNISHMENT WTHOUT CRIME” !!
Here’s a video of me explaining my position on forced adoption and the gagging of both parents and children .
OR CHANNEL 4 TV:-

The statistics

It’s by no means a given, but children who spend time in the care system are less likely than other children to achieve academic success or benefit from stable relationships.
They are more likely to have problems with crime, drugs and mental health than their peers.
  • When they leave primary school, 43% of children in care will have reached the national curriculum test level expected for their age – compared with 74% of all children.
  • Almost one third of children in care leave school with no GCSEs or vocational tests like GNVQs.
  • Only 13.2% of children in care obtain five good GCSEs – compared with 57.9% of all children.1
  • Only 6% of care leavers go to university – compared with 38% of all young people.2
  • One third of care leavers are not in education, employment or training – compared with 13% of all young people.3
  • More than one in 10 children had three or more placements in 2010. 4
  • 23% of the adult prison population has been in care and almost 40% of prisoners under 21 were in care as children (only 2% of the general population spend time in prison).
  • A quarter of young women leaving care are pregnant or already mothers, and nearly half become mothers by the age of 24.5
HOW TO USE THIS SITE !
1:-If you want to learn about the tyranny of social services and the family courts in the UK READ ON !
2:-If social services are already bothering you or even threatening you CLICK ON  ABOVE MY PHOTO AND SKIP STRAIGHT TO THE GOLDEN RULES !
3:-If the “SS” have already taken your children or grandchildren skip straight to the golden rules and the list of contacts plus how to represent yourself ,then turn to the section “get your children back” and note the parts that apply in your case.
There are a lot of lunatics and fanatics on the “web”.SO Please note that EVERY case I quote has appeared in a national newpaper and all the figures that I feature originate from statistics issued by government bodies or officially recognised government sponsored charities. I draw your attention to facts that are not disputed; though my theories on how we should deal with those facts certainly will be contested by outraged protests from those involved in the highly profitable “care” and “adoption” industries. !
.
Forgive me if I repeat myself too often in this “exposé” of the “SS” and the family courts,but the average person simply cannot believe that such things happen in “democratic Britain”.Well,believe me they do! Repetition is necessary to reinforce your belief ! I have found in practice that I HAVE TO REPEAT THE SAME TRUTHS AGAIN AND AGAIN BEFORE READERS REMEMBER THEM AND ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEM.That is why you will keep coming across the same reminders of the same appalling injustices many times at different points in this narrative.
Social workers often grumble that I only listen to one side of the story and that from parents who are not truthful.
That is why a very important point is that after I HAVE SEEN THE POSITION STATEMENT OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I START OFF BY ASSUMING EVERY FACT THE SS RELIES ON IS TRUE and then ask myself if even then it justifies breaking up a family or worse still forbidding parents from having any contact (face to face or indirect) whatever with their children under pain of imprisonment ! . The answer in the sort of cases above that I receive when parents contact me is nearly always NO ! Why are the parents who ring me to complain that social services have taken their children nearly always right? Because they have very rarely been charged or convicted of an offence against children and PUNISHMENT without CRIME is always WRONG !
If on the other hand I or a journalist like Christopher Booker  ask the local authority for “their side”  of the story in any forced adoption or fostering case their usual response is to rush off and apply to the court for an injunction forbidding any person from discussing or seeking information about the case from any source ! Not very encouraging for anyone trying to get both sides of the story !
http://johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/  httpp:/johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/
Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B: ‘

Christopher Booker writes in The Telegraph   April 2nd 2016.
Politicians won’t see the dark side of adoption
It is not often this column half agrees with our social workers, but when the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, comes up with yet another government attempt to “fast-track” the speed with which children in “care” are adopted, and a Community Care poll shows that this is strongly opposed by 69 per cent of social workers, it is hard not to.
She is only doing this, they claim, because she wants to save money; and they believe that such relentless pressure to speed up adoptions is not in the children’s “best interests”. I have quoted before what was said last year to a conference by Maggie Mellon, deputy chairman of the British Association of Social Workers: “The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period with horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the Thirties, Forties and Fifties… that was done because it was felt it was the right thing. But now we think, how on earth could we possibly have done that?”
It is true that the record number of children now in care, 69,540 in England alone, is higher than at any time since the 1989 Children Act, while placements for adoption fell in 2015 by 24 per cent to 7,320. But the reason for this dramatic fall was two trenchant judgments in which our top family judge, Sir James Munby, excoriated local authorities for their failure in too many instances to make a proper case that adoption is in a child’s best interests. What, of course, ministers never admit is that, too often, there is no good reason for children to be taken from their families at all. Nor do they address the tragic fact that too many children then suffer far worse treatment in “care” than anything alleged against their parents as the excuse for removing them.
In December, Ofsted published new figures showing that in 2014/15 the number of times children went missing from foster care rose by 20 per cent, to a record 17,175. Many times in recent years I have reported on such cases, as when children manage to escape back to the loving parents from whom they had been removed, only to be forcibly returned by the police to the foster home they dreaded. It is true that adoptions do reduce the ever-rising cost of fostering, now estimated by the Commons Library at £36,524 a year for each child.
In my local paper recently, Bath and North East Somerset Council was offering foster carers “£600 a week” per child. And greatly adding to these costs are the lavish fees charged by fostering agencies, usually run by ex-social workers, such as Foster Care Associates, which in 2015 paid its senior director £406,000, or the National Fostering Agency, sold in 2012 to an “equity firm” for £130 million, which last year earned £94.5 million from local authorities for making their fostering arrangements, earning its highest paid director £318,112.
Until our politicians face up to the dark side of what is going on in our horribly corrupted “child protection” system, we can only echo Lord Justice Munby’s hope that, in 30 years’ time, “adoption as we understand it” will “bear very little relation to adoption as we practise it today”. But for now our ministers just press blindly on, wilfully oblivious to the massive scale of a disaster for which, ultimately, they more than anyone else are responsible.