Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:29 am Post subject: Govt. stealing children at secret family courts
There's a very good reference here (in this nine minute clip) to the recent comments made by Martin Nary, Chief Executive of Barnado's where he says that children should be removed from their parents, if required, when they're babies etc.
Social Scare: Cops take kids away in 'forced adoption' racket www.youtube.com
With 10,000 children in care of the UK government, taking kids from their parents is seen as a last resort. But some British families have been torn apart by social workers who remove children over minor domestic issues.
Link _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
A very good question asked by many who have had their children stolen for forced adoption or had dealings with Cafcass/Coram and the secret family courts
Assessment of Social Workers' child handling adequacy
12 July 2010
Dear Department of Health,
Social Workers have the authority -
First, to watch and scrutinise the way that foster parents handle
foster children, whilst seeing if they merit heir pay.
Second, to watch and minutely scrutinise the way natural parents
handle the children that Social Workers are determined to take into
Third, to asses potential Adoptive Parents
Could you therefore please tell me whether before Social Workers
are allowed to do these jobs, the way THEY handle children is
watched and minutely scrutinised, over a long period of time, (for
what should be obvious reasons), by a totally independent body,
(i.e. not by their own kind)
Note 'theory', as learned on education and training courses is a
totally different things.
Well, I think Harry Fletcher assistant general secretary of the union for family court staff may have been on to something when he said last time around: ‘Barnardo’s have a vested interest in residential homes because they run some of them.’
This time around, with the focus on adoption, it’s worth noting that Barnardo’s Fostering and Adoption Service ‘work on behalf of, and in partnership with, a large number of local authorities across the UK. We are keen to develop new services………’
Just for clarity, that means that they have contracts for delivery of fostering and adoption services. The overall income from contracts and public grants was £119m in the year to March 2008, up by around £8m on the previous year.
Quote: 2- Chief Executive of Dr Barnardos, Martin Narey, employed Neville Husband: Prison officer and notorious child sex offender from Medomsley YOI.
The national press is awash with the disturbing comments from Martin Narey, Chief Executive of Dr Barnardos. He stated: “Take more babies away from bad parents at birth”
Last year Dr Barnardos income topped £215 million. They are responsible for the care of approx 100,000 children. This equates to an income of £215,000 per child per year.
Martin Narey was Governor at both Frankland maximum-security prison and Deerbolt Borstal for young offenders (both in Co Durham), when a known paedophile ‘Neville Husband’ was employed as a senior officer at Frankland and seconded as an officer at Deerbolt. Husband had been forced to leave Medomsley Detention Centre for young offenders after torturing and abusing boys. He was subsequently convicted and is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence. Prior to his conviction Husband was also a Church Minister for the United Reformed Church. Many of the victims have not received justice yet and Husband is due to be released from prison next month.
Cravings for young boys
Statements given to police by prison officers who worked with Husband suggest suspicions were rife about his cravings for young boys, who he went on to molest in the kitchens he ran.
One statement by an officer who served at Medomsley in 1978, reads: "I don't know why but all the governors thought very highly of Husband and seemed to look after him.”
As a Prison Governor, Martin Narey either ignored or was grossly negligent by failing to observe Husband’s employment records: That he was arrested in 1967 whilst at Portland young offenders centre for the illegal importation of homosexual pornography. That the case was silenced and Husband was moved to Medomsley Detention Centre where he continued to import pornography direct into the Centre. That he was investigated by the police on numerous occasions but without further actions. That Husband then embarked on his horrific sexual torture of countless young boys. These boys are now men and want their story told.
Whilst researching Medomsley detention centre (now Hassockfield Secure Training Centre) Maloney discovered that as recently as 2004 Adam Rickwood (14), became the youngest prisoner to commit suicide in the UK. Adam’s family and friends all believe that Adam did not kill himself and that there has been a massive cover-up; this is truthfully and emotionally displayed in the documentary. Adam was found hanging in his cell with a broken nose, broken wrist and covered in bruises.
99.9 per cent of young offenders in the UK stem from the lower working classes. As Bill Maloney states in his documentary “You can’t keep bashing our kids like this, we’re not going to allow it any more”.
Now Martin Narey wants to rip lower working class baby’s from their mothers at birth. The effects on Mothers and Fathers and their families for the loss of their babies will be devastating. The huge funds invested into Barnardos each year should be put to helping these young parents, it is immoral to suggest taking these young children into care when the care system continues to abuse them and profit from them.
20 November at 15:44 Reply • Report
The battle for Ellie-Jay began before she was born in June 2008. All was lost on 17th November 2010. Her nan was well able to care for her, until the authorities destroyed her...they turned a well balanced woman into a wreck then used that as an argument that she was incapable of caring for Ellie-Jay. The details of this case will make very interesting reading, anyone who still believes that children are not stolen by the state for no good reason is in for a massive shock, as this story unfolds you will all see the truth about the 'Secret' Family Courts in the UK and their draconian measures trying to replicate something close to Hitlers vision of a perfect world!! The UK are tiny step away from EVERY SINGLE PERSON being vetted for before they can have a family. Whatever happened to Human Rights!
Please share the above and join the group to show your support and outrage at what has hapened to this wonderful woman.Is there anything that can be done to stop her grandchild being adopted? Any help or advie would be welcomed.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 16151 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:47 pm Post subject:
Way worse than Chitty Chitty Bang Bang this one
Woman has child taken from her womb by social services
Exclusive: Essex social services have obtained a court order against a woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and for her child to be taken from her womb by caesarean section
The case has developed into an international legal row, with lawyers for the woman describing it as “unprecedented”
The case has developed into an international legal row, with lawyers for the woman describing it as “unprecedented” Photo: ALAMY
Colin Freeman By Colin Freeman8:58PM GMT 30 Nov 2013
A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.
Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.
The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.
The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.
The case has developed into an international legal row, with lawyers for the woman describing it as “unprecedented”.
'Operate on this mother so that we can take her baby’ 30 Nov 2013
They claim that even if the council had been acting in the woman’s best interests, officials should have consulted her family beforehand and also involved Italian social services, who would be better-placed to look after the child.
Brendan Fleming, the woman’s British lawyer, told The Sunday Telegraph: “I have never heard of anything like this in all my 40 years in the job.
“I can understand if someone is very ill that they may not be able to consent to a medical procedure, but a forced caesarean is unprecedented.
“If there were concerns about the care of this child by an Italian mother, then the better plan would have been for the authorities here to have notified social services in Italy and for the child to have been taken back there.”
The case, reported by Christopher Booker in his column in The Sunday Telegraph today, raises fresh questions about the extent of social workers’ powers.
It will be raised in Parliament this week by John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP. He chairs the Public Family Law Reform Coordinating Campaign, which wants reform and greater openness in court proceedings involving family matters.
He said: “I have seen a number of cases of abuses of people’s rights in the family courts, but this has to be one of the more extreme.
“It involves the Court of Protection authorising a caesarean section without the person concerned being made aware of what was proposed. I worry about the way these decisions about a person’s mental capacity are being taken without any apparent concern as to the effect on the individual being affected.”
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is an Italian national who come to Britain in July last year to attend a training course with an airline at Stansted Airport in Essex.
She suffered a panic attack, which her relations believe was due to her failure to take regular medication for an existing bipolar condition.
She called the police, who became concerned for her well-being and took her to a hospital, which she then realised was a psychiatric facility.
She has told her lawyers that when she said she wanted to return to her hotel, she was restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
Meanwhile, Essex social services obtained a High Court order in August 2012 for the birth “to be enforced by way of caesarean section”, according to legal documents seen by this newspaper.
The woman, who says she was kept in the dark about the proceedings, says that after five weeks in the ward she was forcibly sedated. When she woke up she was told that the child had been delivered by C-section and taken into care.
In February, the mother, who had gone back to Italy, returned to Britain to request the return of her daughter at a hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court.
Her lawyers say that she had since resumed taking her medication, and that the judge formed a favourable opinion of her. But he ruled that the child should be placed for adoption because of the risk that she might suffer a relapse.
The cause has also been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which has questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers.
Lawyers for the woman are demanding to know why Essex social services appear not have contacted next of kin in Italy to consult them on the case.
They are also upset that social workers insisted on placing the child in care in Britain, when there had been an offer from a family friend in America to look after her.
Last night an expert on social care proceedings, who asked not to be named because she was not fully acquainted with the details of the case, described it as “highly unusual”.
She said the council would first have to find “that she was basically unfit to make any decision herself” and then shown there was an acute risk to the mother if a natural birth was attempted.
An Essex county council spokesman said the local authority would not comment on ongoing cases involving vulnerable people and children. _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
"We’ve got to be much more honest about this, and if we are honest about it, things go wrong."
"We’ve got to be much more honest about this, and if we are honest about it, things go wrong," said Sir James. CREDIT: BRIAN SMITH
Olivia Rudgard, social affairs correspondent
14 MARCH 2018 • 9:00PM
Secrecy in family courts could be allowing judges to get away with mistakes, the most senior family judge in England and Wales has said.
Speaking at an event on Tuesday evening, Sir James Munby, president of the high court's family division, said that judges were "grotesquely overworked" and "tired" and so more likely to make errors.
He said more openness would allow journalists and the public to scrutinise their decisions.
Judges should not be "immune from criticism" and that journalists should be able to argue that "the whole thing is flawed, the premises are all wrong, the facts are all wrong" if they think the judge has erred, he added
"The simple fact is that at present journalists can’t do that without access to the evidence and without reporting what went on in court and saying well, this judge seems to be listening to a different witness than I, and the impression I got from listening to this witness was X,Y,Z and the judge says A,B,C. So I think there are very real problems there," he said.
"We’ve got to be much more honest about this, and if we are honest about it, things go wrong."
Most family court hearings are heard in private but accredited journalists are allowed in unless specifically excluded.
However, there are restrictions on what can be reported and whether they have access to documents.
Sir James added that he often felt that families did not understand what had happened during court proceedings.
"I have a terrible feeling that if you actually stopped some of the parents in these care cases as they were going out of court at the end and you asked them what was going on, what’s been happening, what’s the answer, they’d be unable to explain.
"And that is an indictment of our system, not of them," he said.
Sir James made the comments at a lecture about social media and the family courts, organised by the Family Justice Council and given by journalist Louise Tickle in memory of Bridget Lindley, an influential family lawyer and expert who died in 2016.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum